ECONOMIC ABUSE AS A FORM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
https://www.pids.gov.ph/pids-in-the-news/2272
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269770374_The_Effect_of_Economic_Physical_and_P
sychological_Abuse_on_Mental_Health_A_Population-
Based_Study_of_Women_in_the_Philippines
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfm/2014/852317/

Existing Definitions of
Economic Abuse
and Financial Abuse
Economic abuse has been defined as a
deliberate pattern of
control in which individuals interfere
with their partner’s abil-
ity to acquire, use, and maintain
economic resources (Adams,
Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008;
Postmus, Plummer, McMa-
hon, Murshid, & Kim, 2012).
Academics have sought to cate-
gorize the different forms that
economic abuse can take. For
instance, Postmus, Plummer, and
Stylianou (2016) suggest that
economic abuse involves behaviors
that control, exploit, or
sabotage an individual’s economic
resources including
employment.
Economic abuse and financial abuse
are frequently used
interchangeably in the literature
(Sharp-Jeffs, 2015b). Alterna-
tively, abuse may be described as
affecting the economic or
financial security of victims of IPV or
causing economic or
financial insecurity. Sharp-Jeffs
(2015a) adapted the definition
of economic abuse, proposing to use
the term “financial abuse”
instead of economic abuse. The
distinction made here between
economic and financial abuse is that
financial abuse is part of
economic abuse and involves similar
behaviors; however,
financial abuse focuses specifically on
individual money and
finances and not economic resources
(e.g., transportation, a
place to live, employment, and
education; Sharp-Jeffs,
2015a). Yount, Krause, and
VanderEnde (2016) recently used
the term “economic coercion” to
describe the same economic
abusive behaviors identified by others
(Adams et al., 2008;
Postmus, Plummer, & Stylianou,
2016) in which an abuser
attempts to control the partner’s ability
to acquire, use, and
maintain resources.
It is important to note that much of the
available literature
describes a range of controlling
behaviors or tactics which may
keep victims of IPV financially
dependent and socially iso-
lated, often, in place of a definition.
Some of the tactics of
economic abuse include reduced
access to savings and assets
(Braaf & Barrett Meyering, 2010),
deliberately causing hous-
ing insecurity by damaging property
or not making rent or
mortgage payments (Valentine &
Breckenridge, 2016), and
malicious interference with workforce
and educational partic-
ipation (Breckenridge, Walden, &
Flax, 2014).
2TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
XX(X)
Measuring Economic Abuse
The measures used in studies on IPV
may include items that ask
about forms of economic or financial
abuse; however, without
identifying such abuse as a focus of
the work, they fail to
reliably capture the scope, complexity,
or magnitude of the
abuse. For example, Outlaw (2009)
included one question
about economic abuse as part of the
National Violence Against
Women Survey and then concluded
that economic abuse was a
rare phenomenon, occurring less than
physical abuse.
Other studies have included more
than one question on
economic abuse but again, fail to
identify the term as a focus
of the work. Instead, the questions are
frequently integrated
into emotional or psychological abuse
scales or subscales. For
example, the Abusive Behavior
Inventory (ABI; Shepard &
Campbell, 1992) has two subscales—
Physical and Psycholo-
gical—in which a few questions on
economic abuse are part
of the Psychological Abuse subscale.
Similarly, the Index of
Spouse Abuse Hudson & McIntosh,
1981) had physical and
Non-Physical Abuse subscales in
which the Non-Physical
Abuse subscale included two
questions on economic abuse;
however, the term was never
mentioned in the reporting of
the results. The Psychological
Maltreatment of Women
Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1989)
has five questions on
economic abuse as part of the long
form; however, the short
form only retained one question.
Other researchers included questions
on economic abuse
without recognizing they had done so.
For example, Lloyd
(1997) used an expanded version of
the Conflict Tactics Scale
to include questions around work
sabotage efforts, which is a
form of economic abuse. Although
not naming economic
abuse, the qualitative portion of this
study provided illustra-
tions of what could be understood as
employment sabotage,
economic exploitation, and
economic control. Similarly,
Tolman and Wang (2005) focused on
employment sabotage
efforts that abusers use against
victims in their literature
review; unfortunately, they failed to
mention or include ques-
tions on economic or financial abuse
in their measure of abuse.
Finally, Weaver, Sanders, Campbell,
and Schnabel (2009)
created the Domestic Violence–
Related Financial Issues Scale
(DV-FI) that included a subscale on
economic abuse as part of
their evaluation of a financial literacy
program. This subscale
only included five questions, of which
three focused on credit
card debt and credit rating and failed
to capture a wider view of
the phenomenon.
Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, and Greeson
(2008) created the
first Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA)
from several sources
such as existing research and from
interviews with advocates
and IPV survivors. The researchers
started with a 120-item
scale covering several concepts of
economic abuse including
preventing women’s resource
acquisition, preventing women’s
use of resources, and exploiting
women’s resources. After fur-
ther testing, the final scale included 28
questions and two sub-
scales including economic exploitation
and economic control.
Postmus et al. (2016) further tested the
SEA and reduced the
items to 12 questions, naming it the
SEA-12. From their
analyses, they found three conceptual
categories of economic
abuse—economic control, economic
exploitation, and employ-
ment sabotage. Further testing of the
SEA-12 with a new sam-
ple of survivors found that the SEA-12
was a reliable and valid
measure of economic abuse and that
such abuse is distinctly
different from physical, emotional,
and sexual abuse (Stylianou
et al., 2013). Additionally, the testing
found that the three
constructs were also uniquely different
from each other and
from other forms of abuse.
While it is clear from a preliminary
review of the literature
that economic abuse may be
reported by victims of IPV,
research to date subsumes economic
abuse into the categories
of emotional or psychological abuse,
fails to report the findings
as economic abuse, or does not report
the results of the limited
number of survey questions at all.
Additionally, the recent
publications of a scale for economic
abuse has had limited
testing with varied samples of
survivors; they were also only
tested with samples in the United
States. Hence, the measure-
ment of economic abuse in IPV is
limited. Additionally, there
have been no studies which have
attempted to systematically
review the ways in which it has been
measured internationally
The predominant perception of
intimate partner violence (IPV) as
constituting physical violence can still
dominate, particularly in
research and media reports, despite
research documenting multiple forms
of IPV including sexual violence
occurring between
intimate partners and various forms
of psychological and emotional
abuse. One frequently hidden or
“invisible” form of abuse
perpetrated within intimate partner
relationships is economic abuse, also
referred to as financial abuse in much
of the liter-
ature. While the links between
gendered economic insecurity and
economic abuse are emerging, there
remains a lack of
consistency about definitions within
the United States and globally, as
there is no agreed upon index with
which to measure
economic abuse. As such, the purpose
of this article is to review and analyze
the global literature focused on either
economic
or financial abuse to determine how it
is defined and what measures are
used to capture its prevalence and
impact. The 46 peer-
reviewed articles that met all
inclusion criteria for analysis came
from a range of countries across six
continents. Our review
found that there is growing clarity
and consistency of terminologies
being used in these articles and found
some consistency in
the use of validated measures. Since
this research is in its “infancy,” we
need to have stronger collaborative
efforts to use
similar measures and terminology.
Part of that collaborative effort is to
consider how language and cultural
differences may play
a part in our understanding of
economic abus
The predominant perception of
intimate partner violence (IPV) as
constituting physical violence can still
dominate, particularly in
research and media reports, despite
research documenting multiple forms
of IPV including sexual violence
occurring between
intimate partners and various forms
of psychological and emotional
abuse. One frequently hidden or
“invisible” form of abuse
perpetrated within intimate partner
relationships is economic abuse, also
referred to as financial abuse in much
of the liter-
ature. While the links between
gendered economic insecurity and
economic abuse are emerging, there
remains a lack of
consistency about definitions within
the United States and globally, as
there is no agreed upon index with
which to measure
economic abuse. As such, the purpose
of this article is to review and analyze
the global literature focused on either
economic
or financial abuse to determine how it
is defined and what measures are
used to capture its prevalence and
impact. The 46 peer-
reviewed articles that met all
inclusion criteria for analysis came
from a range of countries across six
continents. Our review
found that there is growing clarity
and consistency of terminologies
being used in these articles and found
some consistency in
the use of validated measures. Since
this research is in its “infancy,” we
need to have stronger collaborative
efforts to use
similar measures and terminology.
Part of that collaborative effort is to
consider how language and cultural
differences may play
a part in our understanding of
economic abus
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1524838018764160?ai=1gvoi&mi=3ricys&af=R

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfm/2014/852317/

https://www.pids.gov.ph/pids-in-the-news/2272 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_abuse

https://www.womenandmoney.org.au/what-is-financial-abuse/

https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/ilr.cornell.edu/files/Economic-Abuse-Untold-Cost-of-DV.pdf
http://theconversation.com/revealed-the-hidden-problem-of-economic-abuse-in-australia-73764

https://www.goodshep.org.au/media/1223/economic-abuse_final-report.pdf
https://www.bustle.com/p/what-is-financial-abuse-this-one-kind-of-domestic-violence-is-far-
more-common-than-physical-abuse-2908853
https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/ilr.cornell.edu/files/Economic-Abuse-Untold-Cost-of-DV.pdf

https://www.bwss.org/resources/economic-empowerment-strategies-for-women/understanding-
financial-abuse-safety-planning/
https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/financial-abuse/

https://www.womenandmoney.org.au/what-is-financial-abuse/

Impacts of economic abuse The cross-sectoral consultations identified that economic abuse can
have severe and deeply-entrenched impacts on women and children. For example, people in the
consultations identified that economic abuse: • Is a long-term problem. Economic abuse tends to
result in poor credit records, and is often perpetrated post-separation (for example, through the
non-payment of child support). It can lead to an erosion of the victim’s sense of financial
capability. However, current violence support programs do not tend to reflect the long-term
nature of economic abuse. • Impacts on children’s wellbeing. When a mother is being
economically abused, her children can face deprivation of their material needs (such as the lack
of food or shelter, for example). Children can also face social exclusion as a result of not being
able to attend events such as school excursions. • Leads to poverty. Participants noted that
women are frequently faced with making a ‘choice’ between poverty and violence. Indeed,
economic abuse is a key reason why women stay in, and return to, violent relationships. This
difficulty tends to be exacerbated by the lack of adequate social security support in Australia. For
detailed information about the impacts of economic abuse on women and children, refer to
Spotlight on Economic Abuse: A Literature and Policy Review (Macdonald 2012(h)).

Despite the abundant literature on the

dierent types of abuse, very few
have focused on economic
abuse, with scholars stressing the need
to include economic
abuse as a form of IPV, given the
nature of behaviours such
as employment sabotage, economic
control, and economic
exploitation
Existing Definitions of
Economic Abuse
and Financial Abuse
Economic abuse has been defined as a
deliberate pattern of
control in which individuals interfere
with their partner’s abil-
ity to acquire, use, and maintain
economic resources (Adams,
Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008;
Postmus, Plummer, McMa-
hon, Murshid, & Kim, 2012).
Academics have sought to cate-
gorize the different forms that
economic abuse can take. For
instance, Postmus, Plummer, and
Stylianou (2016) suggest that
economic abuse involves behaviors
that control, exploit, or
sabotage an individual’s economic
resources including
employment.
Economic abuse and financial abuse
are frequently used
interchangeably in the literature
(Sharp-Jeffs, 2015b). Alterna-
tively, abuse may be described as
affecting the economic or
financial security of victims of IPV or
causing economic or
financial insecurity. Sharp-Jeffs
(2015a) adapted the definition
of economic abuse, proposing to use
the term “financial abuse”
instead of economic abuse. The
distinction made here between
economic and financial abuse is that
financial abuse is part of
economic abuse and involves similar
behaviors; however,
financial abuse focuses specifically on
individual money and
finances and not economic resources
(e.g., transportation, a
place to live, employment, and
education; Sharp-Jeffs,
2015a). Yount, Krause, and
VanderEnde (2016) recently used
the term “economic coercion” to
describe the same economic
abusive behaviors identified by others
(Adams et al., 2008;
Postmus, Plummer, & Stylianou,
2016) in which an abuser
attempts to control the partner’s ability
to acquire, use, and
maintain resources.
It is important to note that much of the
available literature
describes a range of controlling
behaviors or tactics which may
keep victims of IPV financially
dependent and socially iso-
lated, often, in place of a definition.
Some of the tactics of
economic abuse include reduced
access to savings and assets
(Braaf & Barrett Meyering, 2010),
deliberately causing hous-
ing insecurity by damaging property
or not making rent or
mortgage payments (Valentine &
Breckenridge, 2016), and
malicious interference with workforce
and educational partic-
ipation (Breckenridge, Walden, &
Flax, 2014).
2TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
XX(X)
Measuring Economic Abuse
The measures used in studies on IPV
may include items that ask
about forms of economic or financial
abuse; however, without
identifying such abuse as a focus of
the work, they fail to
reliably capture the scope, complexity,
or magnitude of the
abuse. For example, Outlaw (2009)
included one question
about economic abuse as part of the
National Violence Against
Women Survey and then concluded
that economic abuse was a
rare phenomenon, occurring less than
physical abuse.
Other studies have included more
than one question on
economic abuse but again, fail to
identify the term as a focus
of the work. Instead, the questions are
frequently integrated
into emotional or psychological abuse
scales or subscales. For
example, the Abusive Behavior
Inventory (ABI; Shepard &
Campbell, 1992) has two subscales—
Physical and Psycholo-
gical—in which a few questions on
economic abuse are part
of the Psychological Abuse subscale.
Similarly, the Index of
Spouse Abuse Hudson & McIntosh,
1981) had physical and
Non-Physical Abuse subscales in
which the Non-Physical
Abuse subscale included two
questions on economic abuse;
however, the term was never
mentioned in the reporting of
the results. The Psychological
Maltreatment of Women
Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1989)
has five questions on
economic abuse as part of the long
form; however, the short
form only retained one question.
Other researchers included questions
on economic abuse
without recognizing they had done so.
For example, Lloyd
(1997) used an expanded version of
the Conflict Tactics Scale
to include questions around work
sabotage efforts, which is a
form of economic abuse. Although
not naming economic
abuse, the qualitative portion of this
study provided illustra-
tions of what could be understood as
employment sabotage,
economic exploitation, and
economic control. Similarly,
Tolman and Wang (2005) focused on
employment sabotage
efforts that abusers use against
victims in their literature
review; unfortunately, they failed to
mention or include ques-
tions on economic or financial abuse
in their measure of abuse.
Finally, Weaver, Sanders, Campbell,
and Schnabel (2009)
created the Domestic Violence–
Related Financial Issues Scale
(DV-FI) that included a subscale on
economic abuse as part of
their evaluation of a financial literacy
program. This subscale
only included five questions, of which
three focused on credit
card debt and credit rating and failed
to capture a wider view of
the phenomenon.
Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, and Greeson
(2008) created the
first Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA)
from several sources
such as existing research and from
interviews with advocates
and IPV survivors. The researchers
started with a 120-item
scale covering several concepts of
economic abuse including
preventing women’s resource
acquisition, preventing women’s
use of resources, and exploiting
women’s resources. After fur-
ther testing, the final scale included 28
questions and two sub-
scales including economic exploitation
and economic control.
Postmus et al. (2016) further tested the
SEA and reduced the
items to 12 questions, naming it the
SEA-12. From their
analyses, they found three conceptual
categories of economic
abuse—economic control, economic
exploitation, and employ-
ment sabotage. Further testing of the
SEA-12 with a new sam-
ple of survivors found that the SEA-12
was a reliable and valid
measure of economic abuse and that
such abuse is distinctly
different from physical, emotional,
and sexual abuse (Stylianou
et al., 2013). Additionally, the testing
found that the three
constructs were also uniquely different
from each other and
from other forms of abuse.
While it is clear from a preliminary
review of the literature
that economic abuse may be
reported by victims of IPV,
research to date subsumes economic
abuse into the categories
of emotional or psychological abuse,
fails to report the findings
as economic abuse, or does not report
the results of the limited
number of survey questions at all.
Additionally, the recent
publications of a scale for economic
abuse has had limited
testing with varied samples of
survivors; they were also only
tested with samples in the United
States. Hence, the measure-
ment of economic abuse in IPV is
limited. Additionally, there
have been no studies which have
attempted to systematically
review the ways in which it has been
measured internationally
Existing Definitions of
Economic Abuse
and Financial Abuse
Economic abuse has been defined as a
deliberate pattern of
control in which individuals interfere
with their partner’s abil-
ity to acquire, use, and maintain
economic resources (Adams,
Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008;
Postmus, Plummer, McMa-
hon, Murshid, & Kim, 2012).
Academics have sought to cate-
gorize the different forms that
economic abuse can take. For
instance, Postmus, Plummer, and
Stylianou (2016) suggest that
economic abuse involves behaviors
that control, exploit, or
sabotage an individual’s economic
resources including
employment.
Economic abuse and financial abuse
are frequently used
interchangeably in the literature
(Sharp-Jeffs, 2015b). Alterna-
tively, abuse may be described as
affecting the economic or
financial security of victims of IPV or
causing economic or
financial insecurity. Sharp-Jeffs
(2015a) adapted the definition
of economic abuse, proposing to use
the term “financial abuse”
instead of economic abuse. The
distinction made here between
economic and financial abuse is that
financial abuse is part of
economic abuse and involves similar
behaviors; however,
financial abuse focuses specifically on
individual money and
finances and not economic resources
(e.g., transportation, a
place to live, employment, and
education; Sharp-Jeffs,
2015a). Yount, Krause, and
VanderEnde (2016) recently used
the term “economic coercion” to
describe the same economic
abusive behaviors identified by others
(Adams et al., 2008;
Postmus, Plummer, & Stylianou,
2016) in which an abuser
attempts to control the partner’s ability
to acquire, use, and
maintain resources.
It is important to note that much of the
available literature
describes a range of controlling
behaviors or tactics which may
keep victims of IPV financially
dependent and socially iso-
lated, often, in place of a definition.
Some of the tactics of
economic abuse include reduced
access to savings and assets
(Braaf & Barrett Meyering, 2010),
deliberately causing hous-
ing insecurity by damaging property
or not making rent or
mortgage payments (Valentine &
Breckenridge, 2016), and
malicious interference with workforce
and educational partic-
ipation (Breckenridge, Walden, &
Flax, 2014).
2TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
XX(X)
Measuring Economic Abuse
The measures used in studies on IPV
may include items that ask
about forms of economic or financial
abuse; however, without
identifying such abuse as a focus of
the work, they fail to
reliably capture the scope, complexity,
or magnitude of the
abuse. For example, Outlaw (2009)
included one question
about economic abuse as part of the
National Violence Against
Women Survey and then concluded
that economic abuse was a
rare phenomenon, occurring less than
physical abuse.
Other studies have included more
than one question on
economic abuse but again, fail to
identify the term as a focus
of the work. Instead, the questions are
frequently integrated
into emotional or psychological abuse
scales or subscales. For
example, the Abusive Behavior
Inventory (ABI; Shepard &
Campbell, 1992) has two subscales—
Physical and Psycholo-
gical—in which a few questions on
economic abuse are part
of the Psychological Abuse subscale.
Similarly, the Index of
Spouse Abuse Hudson & McIntosh,
1981) had physical and
Non-Physical Abuse subscales in
which the Non-Physical
Abuse subscale included two
questions on economic abuse;
however, the term was never
mentioned in the reporting of
the results. The Psychological
Maltreatment of Women
Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1989)
has five questions on
economic abuse as part of the long
form; however, the short
form only retained one question.
Other researchers included questions
on economic abuse
without recognizing they had done so.
For example, Lloyd
(1997) used an expanded version of
the Conflict Tactics Scale
to include questions around work
sabotage efforts, which is a
form of economic abuse. Although
not naming economic
abuse, the qualitative portion of this
study provided illustra-
tions of what could be understood as
employment sabotage,
economic exploitation, and
economic control. Similarly,
Tolman and Wang (2005) focused on
employment sabotage
efforts that abusers use against
victims in their literature
review; unfortunately, they failed to
mention or include ques-
tions on economic or financial abuse
in their measure of abuse.
Finally, Weaver, Sanders, Campbell,
and Schnabel (2009)
created the Domestic Violence–
Related Financial Issues Scale
(DV-FI) that included a subscale on
economic abuse as part of
their evaluation of a financial literacy
program. This subscale
only included five questions, of which
three focused on credit
card debt and credit rating and failed
to capture a wider view of
the phenomenon.
Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, and Greeson
(2008) created the
first Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA)
from several sources
such as existing research and from
interviews with advocates
and IPV survivors. The researchers
started with a 120-item
scale covering several concepts of
economic abuse including
preventing women’s resource
acquisition, preventing women’s
use of resources, and exploiting
women’s resources. After fur-
ther testing, the final scale included 28
questions and two sub-
scales including economic exploitation
and economic control.
Postmus et al. (2016) further tested the
SEA and reduced the
items to 12 questions, naming it the
SEA-12. From their
analyses, they found three conceptual
categories of economic
abuse—economic control, economic
exploitation, and employ-
ment sabotage. Further testing of the
SEA-12 with a new sam-
ple of survivors found that the SEA-12
was a reliable and valid
measure of economic abuse and that
such abuse is distinctly
different from physical, emotional,
and sexual abuse (Stylianou
et al., 2013). Additionally, the testing
found that the three
constructs were also uniquely different
from each other and
from other forms of abuse.
While it is clear from a preliminary
review of the literature
that economic abuse may be
reported by victims of IPV,
research to date subsumes economic
abuse into the categories
of emotional or psychological abuse,
fails to report the findings
as economic abuse, or does not report
the results of the limited
number of survey questions at all.
Additionally, the recent
publications of a scale for economic
abuse has had limited
testing with varied samples of
survivors; they were also only
tested with samples in the United
States. Hence, the measure-
ment of economic abuse in IPV is
limited. Additionally, there
have been no studies which have
attempted to systematically
review the ways in which it has been
measured internationally
Despite the abundant literature on the
dierent types of abuse, very few
have focused on economic
abuse, with scholars stressing the need
to include economic
abuse as a form of IPV, given the
nature of behaviours such
as employment sabotage, economic
control, and economic
exploitation
Despite the abundant literature on the
dierent types of abuse, very few
have focused on economic
abuse, with scholars stressing the need
to include economic
abuse as a form of IPV, given the
nature of behaviours such
as employment sabotage, economic
control, and economic
exploitation
Despite the abundant literature on the
dierent types of abuse, very few
have focused on economic
abuse, with scholars stressing the need
to include economic
abuse as a form of IPV, given the
nature of behaviours such
as employment sabotage, economic
control, and economic
exploitation
Despite the abundant literature on the
dierent types of abuse, very few
have focused on economic
abuse, with scholars stressing the need
to include economic
abuse as a form of IPV, given the
nature of behaviours such
as employment sabotage, economic
control, and economic
exploitation
Economic abuse, in addition to physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, is a common
tactic of control in IPV [15] that is as common as physical and psychological abuse.
Defined as the “control of a woman’s ability to acquire, use, and maintain economic
resources, thus threatening her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency” [12],
it is a coercive behaviour that makes the victim economically dependent on her partner
and at greater risk of continued abuse [16]. By controlling women’s ability to acquire,
use, and maintain economic resources, economic abuse threatens victims’ economic
security and ability to achieve economic independence [17]. To establish a state of
economic dependence, an abuser might take “control” of a woman’s resources
by preventing her from obtaining and maintaining employment outside the home [18, 19],
causing her job absence or loss by showing up at her work place [20]; preventing
women’s use of existing resources by controlling resource distribution and use
[18, 19, 21], denying them access to joint bank accounts or financial information [18, 19];
and exploiting a woman’s resources by stealing her money, creating costs, and generating
debt, thereby depleting her economic resources [19, 21]. Economic abuse can lead to
poverty, which, in turn, is a risk factor for further economic abuse [22]. In addition to
creating financial dependence, economic abuse creates a “hostile” environment where the
abused woman is continually psychological distressed and anxious about material or
financial issues. As the victim’s financial dependence on the abuser increases, leaving the
relationship becomes more difficult. Studies have found this stress to be linked with
depression, anxiety, and parenting problems [1, 23].
Economic Factors
Economic Factor is the most common factor of violence against women based on the cases that the
informants have encountered. It involves the financial aspect of women as well as her family and
financial support by the head of the family. In the R.A. 9262, economic is defined as the acts that make or
attempt to make a woman financially dependent.
A Consultant on Women’s Affair stated that economic factor is the root of all the violence done to
women. According to the Chief of Women and Children Protection Services of the Manila Police District,
one factor in the economic aspect is unemployment. A data from National Demographic Health Survey
illustrates that woman who are in lower income bracket are victim of and vulnerable to violence. On the
other hand, the agent of Philippine Commission on Women supported that not only women who live in a
lower income bracket are vulnerable to violence. Some of the victims are from well-known family but
ashamed of reporting due to the value of their family’s name in society. Violence cuts across all sectors of
the society, whether rich or not, every woman is vulnerable.
The informants explained why women who are in low income bracket are vulnerable to violence than

women in higher income bracket. They said that it is because of lack of social services resulting to

women engaging in dangerous jobs like prostitution that leads to sexual harassment which is a violation

to the rights of women. In the economic view inside the family, a barangay chairwoman claimed that

violence occurs when the husband controls the wealth and decision inside the home leaving the woman

powerless. The United Nations General Assembly defines violence against women as any act of

gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in physical, sexual or mental harm or

suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty,

whether occurring in public or in private life. 1

In the Philippines, the commitment of the country to the observance and to the eradication of

Violence against Women and Children was strengthened by the President Benigno S. Aquino III

by signing Republic Act 10398 declaring November 25 of every year as the “National

Consciousness Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Children.” The law also

raises the standard by which this campaign is observed by mandating key agencies to undertake

activities designed to raise public awareness on VAW with the theme: “End VAW Now! It’s Our

Duty!”.2

The Constitutional and Legislative provisions regarding (VAW):

1
United Nations, 2012, United Nations Trust Funds To End Violence Against Women Annual Report, Lifted from
http://www.unwomen.org.html
2
De leon, W.,2013, “Stop VAWC.” 18-Day Campaign to Eliminate VAWC., Lifted from : http://www. event/18-
day-campaign-end-violence-against-women-vawc-2013
 The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains the protection of the human rights of all Filipinos.

Among its salient provisions is Article II, Section 14 which provides that “the state recognizes the

role of women in nation building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of

women and men.”.3

Anti-Mail Order Bride Law (Republic Act 6955) is the law declares unlawful the

matching of Filipino mail-order brides to foreigners. It penalizes the business of matching

Filipino women for marriage to foreign nationals either through personal introduction as well as

through advertisement, publication, printing or distribution of brochure and flyers, through

membership in clubs created for matching Filipinas to foreign nationals and, through the use of

the postal service.

Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (Republic Act 7877) is the law makes incidents

involving unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical

conduct of sexual nature, made directly or indirectly in the employment, education or training

environment unlawful. Sexual harassment is about abusing power relations – using one’s power

to extract sexual favor.4

Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (Republic Act 8353)c is the law reclassifies rape as a crime

against persons, defining it as public rather than a private crime. It recognizes marital rape and

questions the notion of sexual obligation in marriage. It also notes that rape happens even

without penetration and the use of objects as constituting sexual assault, which is also considered

as a form of rape. The law also increased the penalties against rape.

3
De Leon, 2011, Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, Manila, Rex Bookstore, Inc.
4
Boado, L., 2007, Notes and Cases on Special Penal Law, Manila, Rex Book Store Inc.
 Rape Victims Assistance and Protection Act of 1998 (Republic Act 8505) is the law

provides assistance and protection to rape victims, establishes for the purpose of a Rape Crisis

Center in every province and city and authorizes the appropriation of funds for the establishment

and operation of these centers. Aside from the provision of services, capacity building/training is

also mandated for the law enforcement officers, public prosecutors, lawyers, medico-legal

officers, social workers and barangay officials on human rights and their responsibilities, gender

sensitivity and legal management of rape cases. 5

Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Republic Act 9208) is the law defines

trafficking in person in terms of the acts, means and purposes of trafficking. The trafficked

person is considered as a victim thus, she/he should be provided protection and support services

by the State. Government agencies are mandated to provide services to the trafficked persons at

the international, national and local levels for his/her early recovery and reintegration.6

Article 245 of the Revised Penal Code (Republic Act 3815) is the law provides that abuse

against chastity is committed by any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral advances

to a woman interested in matters pending before such office for decision, or with respect to

which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer; or by any warden or

other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons under

arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody. A

penalty of prison correctional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary

special disqualification shall be imposed on the offender.7

5
Department of the Interior and Local Government. 2012. Barangay VAWC help desk handbook Retrieved at
http://dilg.gov.ph
6
Ibid.

7
Guerrero, S. H. & Pedroso, L., 2002, Handbook for monitoring intervention program to stop gender violence,
University Center for Women Studies: University of the Philippines.
 Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Republic Act 9262) is

the law defines violence against women and their children as a public crime. It provides for the

security of the woman-complainant and her children through the availment of the barangay,

temporary or permanent protection orders. It also identifies the duties of barangay officials, law

enforces, prosecutors, court personnel, social welfare and health care providers and the LGUs to

provide the necessary protection and support of VAWC victims.8

The predominant perception of

intimate partner violence (IPV) as
constituting physical violence can still
dominate, particularly in
research and media reports, despite
research documenting multiple forms
of IPV including sexual violence
occurring between
intimate partners and various forms
of psychological and emotional
abuse. One frequently hidden or
“invisible” form of abuse
8
Ibid.
perpetrated within intimate partner
relationships is economic abuse, also
referred to as financial abuse in much
of the liter-
ature. While the links between
gendered economic insecurity and
economic abuse are emerging, there
remains a lack of
consistency about definitions within
the United States and globally, as
there is no agreed upon index with
which to measure
economic abuse. As such, the purpose
of this article is to review and analyze
the global literature focused on either
economic
or financial abuse to determine how it
is defined and what measures are
used to capture its prevalence and
impact. The 46 peer-
reviewed articles that met all
inclusion criteria for analysis came
from a range of countries across six
continents. Our review
found that there is growing clarity
and consistency of terminologies
being used in these articles and found
some consistency in
the use of validated measures. Since
this research is in its “infancy,” we
need to have stronger collaborative
efforts to use
similar measures and terminology.
Part of that collaborative effort is to
consider how language and cultural
differences may play
a part in our understanding of
economic abus