J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420
DOI 10.1007/s10896-011-9375-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Is Women
Empowerment a Reducing Factor? A Study from a National
Bangladeshi Sample
Mosfequr Rahman & Md. Aminul Hoque &
Satoru Makinoda
Published online: 13 May 2011
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract This article explores how women empowerment
affects Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Bangladesh
using a cross-sectional investigation of currently married
women (n=4,181) sampled via the Bangladesh Demo-
graphic Health Survey (BDHS), 2007. About one-fourth
(24%) of currently married Bangladeshi women experi-
enced both physical and/or sexual IPV in the past year.
Prevalence of physical and sexual violence was 19.4% and
10.5%, respectively. Younger generation (age 15–24),
illiterate, rural, and the poorest household wealth catego-
rized women were much victimized. Current employment
status predicted intimate partner violence. Household
decision-making pattern also emerged as a predictor of
IPV. Likelihood of all forms of IPV increases with
increase of number of participation in household
decision-making. Promoting women empowerment in the
household without men’s support may put women at more
risk of IPV.
Keywords Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) . Women
empowerment . Decision-making . Empowerment
indicators . Bangladesh
M. Rahman (*) : S. Makinoda
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Kanazawa Medical University,
1-1 Daigaku, Uchinada,
Kahoku, Ishikawa 920-0293, Japan
e-mail: mosfeque@kanazawa-med.ac.jp
M. A. Hoque
Department of Medical Informatics,
Niigata University of Medical and Dental Hospital,
1-754 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku,
Niigata, Niigata-shi 951-8520, Japan
Introduction
IPV against women is a pervasive public health concern and
human rights violation of worldwide significance (Krantz
2002; Krantz and Garcia-Moreno 2005; Oyediran and
Isiugo-Abanihe 2005; UNICEF 2000). It is as serious cause
of death and incapacity as cancer and malaria combined
(World Bank 1993). IPV has been shown to adversely
affect women’s health, with evidence of an increased risk of
HIV/AIDS, peri-natal and neonatal mortality, and a range of
reproductive, mental and physical outcomes (Dunkle et al.
2004; Jejeebhoy 1998; Patel et al. 2006; Sidibe et al. 2006;
Silverman et al. 2008; Stephenson et al. 2006).
It is theoretically plausible that women’s economic
empowerment through the process of development may be
linked to IPV. On the one hand, women who earn an income
and help themselves and their families have means to get out
of bad marriages or not to marry at all. When women have
more options, this should decrease likelihood of their being in
an abusive relationship. Kabeer (1999) suggested that poor
women are often most vulnerable to violence. On the other
hand, women’s economic empowerment may promote male
insecurity and feelings of economic inadequacy, leading to
more violence in relationships.
In support of the idea that economic empowerment can
decrease IPV, Blumberg (1991) provides evidence that
having their own income improves women’s ability to have
say over fertility preferences, input into household
decision-making, and self-esteem. Accordingly, when
women feel empowered, they are better able to take action
at the household level to improve their own and their
children’s well-being. In India, study finds that even after
controlling for total household income, the greater the
wife’s income, the lower the likelihood that she will be
beaten (Rao 1991). In contrast to the inverse association
412
between women’s economic empowerment and domestic
violence, Blumberg (1991) also points to evidence that as
women gain more domestic power due to earned income,
they may also face resistance and violence from their
spouses (see Roldan 1988, for evidence of violence in
households where husbands are unemployed and women
are employed).
Pattern of household decision-making characterize the
interpersonal dynamics between husband and wife. Inter-
disciplinary research has focused on the reasons why one
spouse may dominate decision-making (Blood and Wolfe
1965; Blumberg 1991) and how within families, when one
individual decides for others, they may not consider the
well-being of all family members (Dwyer and Bruce 1988;
Sen 1990; Thomas 1990). Several studies have looked at
the impact of spousal domination of decision making on the
well-being and reproductive health of women (Ansara and
Hindin 2009; Castro et al. 2008; Hindin 2000; Lawoko
2008) and some measures of women’s status are being
explored in connection with IPV (Gelaye et al. 2010; Heise
et al. 1999; Jejeebhoy and Cook 1997; Mann and Takyi
2009). In addition, a literature on IPV suggests that
understanding the “origins and dynamics of different kinds
of control in relationships will lead to progress in
understanding domestic violence…” (Johnson and Ferraro
2000, p. 955). In this study, we assess the factors of women
empowerment, including domination of household
decision-making with past year IPV. The aim is to
determine how and to what extent individual and economic
empowerment of women is related to past year IPV in
Bangladesh.
Methods
Sample
The study utilized the 2007 Bangladesh Demographic
Health Survey (BDHS), conducted by the National Institute
for Population Research and Training (NIPORT) of the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of Bangladesh from
March to August 2007 (NIPORT et al. 2009). The survey
used a sample drawn from the total population of
Bangladesh residing in private dwellings. A stratified,
multistage cluster sample of 361 primary sampling units,
227 in rural areas and 134 in urban areas, was conducted. A
total of 11,178 eligible women age 15–49 was identified to
participate in the survey, 10,996 were interviewed, for a
response rate of 98.4%. Eligible men in every second
household were selected to yield 4,074 potential male
respondents, of whom 92.6% or 3,771 were successfully
interviewed. The members of the survey team (which
consisted of educated men and women) were trained by
J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420
the experts for 4 weeks on how to collect the data properly.
Five, well-designed, pre-tested, questionnaires were used
during this survey. Fieldwork was supervised by the expert
quality control teams. Questionnaire were drafted in
English and then translated into Bangla, the national
language of Bangladesh. The questions on domestic
violence in the Women’s and Men’s Questionnaires were
administered to only one eligible respondent per household,
whether female or male. Selecting only one person to
receive the domestic violence questions protects privacy of
that person and helps to ensure that other respondents in the
household are not aware of the types of questions that the
selected respondent was asked. If there was more than one
eligible female or male respondent in the household, the
respondent was selected randomly through a specially
designed simple selection procedure based on the Kish
Grid (Kish 1965), which was built into the Household
Questionnaire. Informed consent was obtained from survey
respondents at the beginning of the interview. Data
collection procedures for the BDHS were approved by the
ORC Macro Institutional Review Board. Details of data
collection and management procedure are described else-
where (NIPORT et al. 2009). In this study, 4,181 currently
married women were included for analyses.
Measures
All variables were assessed via self-report. A single item
assessed demographics including age, education, and place
of residence. A relative index of household wealth was
calculated based on interviewer-observed assets (e.g.,
ownership of consumer items, dwelling characteristics).
To create the wealth index, each asset was assigned a
weight (factor score) generated through principal compo-
nent analysis, and the resulting asset scores were standard-
ized in relation to a normal distribution with a mean of zero
and standard deviation of one (Gwatkin et al. 2000). Each
household was then assigned a score for each asset, and the
scores were summed for each household; individuals were
ranked according to the total score of the household in
which they resided. The sample was then divided into
quintiles with 1 = poorest and 5 = wealthiest 20% of
household.
The questionnaire included six violence related ques-
tions. Each married woman was asked ‘(Does/did) your
(last) husband ever do any of the things to you: (a) push
you, shake you, or throw something at you; (b) slap you; (c)
twist your arm or pull your hair; (d) punch you with his fist
or with something that could hurt you; (e) kick you, drag
you, or beat you up; (f) try to choke you or burn you on
purpose; (g) threaten or attack you with a knife, gun, or any
other weapon; (h) physically force you to have sexual
intercourse with him even when you did not want to?’ A
J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420
positive answer of these questions ((a)–(g)) indicated
physical perpetration and positive to question (h) indicated
sexual IPV perpetration. After each positive response,
currently married women were asked about frequency of
the act in the 12 months preceding the survey. We use the
experience of past year IPV among currently married
women in our study.
The 2007 BDHS explores women’s empowerment in
terms of employment, type of earnings, and control over
cash and earnings, and freedom of movement. In order to
examine how domestic violence varies by women’s
empowerment, information on women’s participation in
household decision-making and their attitudes towards wife
beating are summarized in two separate indices. These
indices are based only on women’s responses to the survey.
The first index is the number of household decisions in
which women participate alone or jointly with their
husband. The items included in this index are: woman’s
own health care; major household purchases; purchases of
daily household needs; visits to family or relatives; and
child’s health care. This index ranges in value from 0 to 5
and is positively related to women’s empowerment. This
reflects the degree of control that women are able to
exercise through making decisions in areas that affect their
own lives and environments. The second index, which also
ranges in value from 0 to 5, is the total number of reasons
that a woman believes justifies a husband beating his wife.
The items included to form this index are: she doesn’t obey
elders; argues with husband; goes out without telling
husband; neglects the children; and refuses to have sexual
intercourse with husband. A higher score on this indicator
may interpret as the women’s supportive attitudes towards
wife beating. It also indicates, a woman who believes that a
husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife for all of
these reasons may consider herself to be of low status, both
absolutely and relative to men.
Statistical Analysis
Past-year prevalence estimates of physical IPV, Sexual IPV, and
both physical and/or sexual IPV were calculated for married
Bangladeshi women and by socio-demographics. Socio-
demographic differences in IPV victimization were assessed
by χ2 test; significance of all analyses was set at P<0.05.
Bivariate relationships between IPV and women empower-
ment variables were determined by crosstab analysis, also
including significance level based on the χ2 test. Finally,
logistic regressions were used to find out to what extent
individual decision-making factors, household domination and
empowerment indicators were independent predictors of
physical IPV, sexual IPV, and both physical and/or sexual
IPV among currently married Bangladeshi women. All
413
statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 15.0 for
windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) to accommodate the
complex sampling design of the BDHS.
Results
Nearly one in every four (24%) currently married
Bangladeshi women experienced both physical and/or
sexual violence in the 12 months preceding the survey:
10.5% experienced sexual violence in the absence of
physical violence, 19.4% experienced physical violence
in the absence of sexual violence by husbands (Fig. 1).
Among different forms of IPV, the most common act of
physical violence was slapping (Fig. 2). Eighteen percent
of currently married women reported that they were being
slapped by their current husband past year. Age was
negatively associated with physical (p<0.001), sexual (p<
0.001), and both physical and/or sexual (p<0.001) IPV
which means that with the increase of age, all forms of
violence decreases (Table 1). Sexual (p=0.017) IPV was
significantly lower in urban (9.0%) than in rural (11.3%)
areas. However, both lower education and lower wealth
index showed significantly higher rate of physical, sexual,
and physical and/or sexual IPV. Number of living children
was also significantly associated with physical IPV (p<
0.001) (Table 1).
Currently working women (12.8% Vs 9.5%) experienced
a significantly higher rate from sexual violence (p<0.001)
(Table 2). The percentages of all forms of IPV increased
when women decided alone about their own health care.
Physical IPV was significantly associated with the final say
on making large household purchases and purchases for
daily needs. Besides, all forms of IPV were significantly
24
19.4
10.5
Sexual IPV Physical IPV Both Physical and/
or Sexual IPV
Fig. 1 Percentage of sexual, physical and both physical and/or sexual
IPV experienced by currently married Bangladeshi women in past
12 months
414
Fig. 2 Percentages of different
forms of intimate partner Spouse twisted her arm or pull
her hair
violence experienced by
currently married women in past Spouse physically forced sex
12 months
when not wanted
Spouse threatened with knife/gun
or other weapon
Spouse tried to choke or burn
Spouse kicked or dragged
Spouse punched with fist or
something harmful
Spouse slapped
Spouse pushed, shook or threw
something
higher when husband alone decided about his wife’s visit to
family or relatives.
From Table 3 we found that, currently working women
were more likely to experience sexual (OR=1.47; 95% CI=
0.70–3.06) and physical (OR=1.69; 95% CI=0.74–3.16)
IPV than women who were not working. Sexual IPV (OR=
0.95; 95% CI=0.60–2.04) was significantly less likely for
women whose husbands alone decided how to spend their
wives’ money; but physical IPV (OR=1.34; 95% CI=0.79–
2.28) was more likely. Again, we also observed that
household-decision making variables were strong predictors
of IPV. Physical IPV significantly increased when the
husband alone decides about large and daily needs
purchases for household (Table 3). It is assumed that
women who participate in household decision-making are
more empowered and thus would be less subject to
violence. Contrary to that expectation, however, there
appears to be a negative relationship between IPV and
woman participation in household decision-making (Table 4).
The likelihood of physical (1.26 times), sexual (1.3 times),
and physical and/or sexual (1.26 times) violence significant-
ly increased along with the number of decisions (4–5
category). Women who believed that a husband was not
justified in beating his wife for any reason were less likely
than other women to report physical (25% vs 17%), sexual
(16% vs 7%), and physical and/or sexual (32% vs 22%) IPV
(Table 4). Though, the odds ratio showed that all forms of
IPV were significantly less when women justified or
accepted beating them for one or more reasons.
Discussion
The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to explore the
relationship between women’s empowerment indicators and
J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420
6.5
10.4
0.6
2.8
6.2
7
17.6
11.4
autonomy and their risk of violence from their husbands. It
provides the evidence that women’s empowerment and
autonomy may increase their risk of domestic violence.
About one-fourth (24%) currently married Bangladeshi
women experienced both physical and/or sexual IPV past
year from their husbands based on women’s self reported
perpetration of such abuse. This rate is also consistent with
other recent studies conducted among married Bangladeshi
women (Ahmed 2005; Koenig et al. 2003; Schuler et al.
1996), and confirms that IPV is alarmingly commonplace in
this impoverished South Asian nations. Although literature
suggests that the prevalence of IPV, which is common in
developed and developing countries, varies widely among
countries (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006; Heise et al. 1999;
UNICEF 2000). The rate of intimate partner violence
revealed by the present study is fairly low as compared to
the other reports based on men respondents in Bangladesh
(Aklimunnessa et al. 2007; Silverman et al. 2007), this may
be related to differences between men and women in
disclosing domestic violence. Although men (Koenig et al.
2006) and women (Ahmed 2005; Schuler et al. 1996)
underreport domestic violence, perhaps this is more
prominent among women. An estimate showed that 99%
of violent acts are never reported by women (Barakat et al.
2007). Schuler et al. (1996) also reported that the rate of
domestic violence was 19% by interview, whereas this
figure was 38% with an ethnographic study. Generally,
women under-report domestic violence in an interview
setting as they consider it to be a sensitive and prestige
issue (Ahmed 2005; Schuler et al. 1996).
In the present study, over one-third of girls (35.0%), age
15–19 years, have experienced both physical and/or sexual
violence in the past year from husbands. It is also observed
that with the increase of age, prevalence of IPV decreases.
The likelihood of experiencing all forms of IPV decreases
J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420 415

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics and IPV in last year of currently married Bangladeshi women

Physical IPV, % (95% CI) Sexual IPV, % (95% CI) Both physical and/or sexual IPV, % (95% CI)

Age
15–19 30.1 (25.9–34.6) 14.2 (11.2–17.9) 35.0 (30.6–39.6)
20–24 26.6 (23.7–29.9) 14.0 (11.8–16.3) 31.8 (28.6–35.1)
25–29 21.4 (18.7–24.4) 11.6 (9.5–14.0) 27.5 (24.5–30.7)
30–34 16.3 (13.7–19.3) 9.5 (7.5–12.0) 21.1 (18.1–24.3)
35–39 14.2 (11.7–17.2) 8.8 (6.8–11.3) 17.8 (15.0–21.0)
40–44 8.1 (5.7–11.3) 5.4 (3.5–8.2) 11.3 (8.5–15.0)
45–49 10.4 (7.4–14.4) 4.7 (2.8–7.8) 12.9 (9.5–17.3)
P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Place of residence
Urban 18.3 (16.4–20.3) 9.0 (7.6–10.6) 21.7 (19.7–23.9)
Rural 19.9 (18.4–21.5) 11.3 (10.1–12.6) 25.2 (23.5–26.9)
P value 0.209 0.017 0.011
Education
No education 21.6 (19.4–23.9) 11.3 (9.7–13.2) 26.4 (24.1–28.9)
Primary 21.0 (18.8–23.4) 11.9 (10.2–13.8) 25.6 (23.2–28.1)
Secondary 18.3 (16.2–20.5) 8.9 (7.4–10.7) 22.4 (20.2–24.9)
Higher 6.9 (4.5–10.5) 7.2 (4.7–10.8) 12.6 (9.3–16.9)
P value <0.001 0.017 <0.001
Wealth Index
Poorest 26.7 (23.6–30.1) 16.0 (13.5–18.9) 33.6 (30.2–37.2)
Poorer 23.5 (20.6–26.6) 12.2 (10.0–14.5) 28.8 (25.7–32.1)
Middle 21.0 (18.3–24.0) 10.5 (8.5–12.9) 25.4 (22.5–28.6)
Richer 18.3 (15.8–21.2) 9.5 (7.6–11.8) 22.2 (20.5–26.5)
Richest 10.1 (8.4–12.2) 5.8 (4.5–7.5) 13.3 (11.3–15.6)
P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
No. of living children
0 18.8 (15.0–23.4) 11.5 (8.4–15.3) 23.6 (19.4–28.4)
1–2 22.1 (20.3–23.0) 11.1 (9.8–12.6) 26.7 (24.7–28.7)
3–4 17.1 (15.1–19.3) 10.1 (8.6–11.9) 22.2 (20.0–24.6)
5+ 14.6 (11.7–18.0) 8.1 (6.0–10.9) 17.8 (14.7–21.4)
P value <0.001 0.217 <0.001

with increasing age and may suggest the assumptions that
as women grow older, their roles as mothers become more
prominent than their roles as wives, and they achieve a
certain status at the household and community levels
(Kishor and Jhonson 2004). The high prevalence of IPV
across age groups underscores the importance of screening
for partner violence among all adolescents, including those
of relatively young age. Like earlier study (Aklimunnessa et
al. 2007), rural women were more likely to experience IPV
than urban women. Also consistent with prior IPV research
(WHO 2002), including that conducted in Bangladesh
(Bates et al. 2004), IPV was most prevalent among the
most disadvantaged groups; however, IPV also occurred at
high rates among even the most advantaged strata of
Bangladeshi society.
While economic factors are often implicated in the cycle
of violence in households, this paper only lends modest
support to this notion. Employment status predict in support
of IPV in these data. However, the result of this study
shows that working women were more likely to experience
violence in the past year by husbands than women who
were not working. Employed women may be at higher risk
of experiencing violence (Rani and Bonu 2009) because
they may be more likely to challenge their husbands’
authority or because their husbands perceive a threat to
their authority (Koenig et al. 2003; Rocca et al. 2009;
Schuler et al. 1996; Vyas and Watts 2009). The social and
cultural context, such as male disapproval of wives
working, may explain why unemployed women are less
likely to face domestic violence (Ameen 2005). Unemployed
416 J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420

Table 2 Women empowerment and decision-making characteristics and IPV in the past 12 months among currently married Bangladeshi women

Physical IPV, % (95% CI) Sexual IPV, % (95% CI) Both physical and/or sexual IPV, % (95% CI)

Work Status
Currently working 20.4 (18.2–22.8) 12.8 (11.0–14.9) 27.4 (25.0–30.1)
Not working 18.8 (17.4–20.3) 9.5 (8.5–10.6) 22.4 (20.9–24.0)
P value 0.251 <0.001 <0.001
Types of earning
Not paid 17.7 (12.3–24.8) 11.3 (7.0–17.7) 24.7 (18.3–32.3)
Cash only 21.8 (19.4–24.4) 13.0 (11.1–15.2) 28.4 (25.7–31.3)
Cash & kind 16.3 (9.5–26.2) 12.6 (6.8–21.9) 23.3 (15.1–33.8)
In kind only 27.9 (15.8–43.9) 14.0 (5.8–28.6) 32.6 (19.5–48.7)
P value 0.287 0.932 0.505
Who decides how to spend own money
Respondent alone 20.9 (16.9–25.5) 13.9 (10.6–18.0) 28.4 (23.7–33.4)
Respondent & Husband 21.3 (18.2–24.7) 11.8 (9.4–15.2) 27.4 (23.9–31.1)
Husband alone 24.6 (17.7–33.1) 15.5 (10.0–23.2) 30.2 (22.6–39.0)
Others 14.3 (4.7–33.6) 17.9 (6.8–37.6) 28.6 (14.0–48.9)
P value 0.636 0.505 0.923
Final say on own health care
Respondent alone 23.4 (20.1–26.97) 12.6 (10.1–15.5) 28.6(25.1–32.4)
Respondent & Husband 19.1 (17.4–21.0) 10.1 (8.8–11.5) 23.6 (21.7–25.7)
Husband alone 18.6 (16.5–20.8) 10.6 (9.0–12.4) 23.2 (21.0–25.6)
Others 16.0 (12.5–20.2) 8.5 (6.0–11.9) 19.7 (15.9–24.2)
P value 0.021 0.185 0.009
Final say on making large household purchases
Respondent alone 19.2 (15.5–23.5) 12.7 (6.8–12.9) 23.1 (21.3–25.0)
Respondent & Husband 18.4 (16.8–20.1) 9.6 (8.4–10.9) 22.3 (18.3–26.8)
Husband alone 22.3 (20.0–24.9) 14.5 (10.6–14.6) 27.1 (24.5–29.8)
Others 16.7 (13.8–20.0) 10.3 (8.1–13.2) 21.8 (18.5–25.4)
P value 0.016 0.069 0.028
Final say on making household purchases for daily needs
Respondent alone 19.6 (17.6–21.8) 10.2 (8.7–12.0) 23.4 (21.3–25.8)
Respondent & Husband 19.2 (17.2–21.4) 9.1 (7.6–12.6) 22.1 (21.6–26.2)
Husband alone 21.9 (19.2–24.8) 12.5 (10.4–14.9) 26.9 (24.0–30.0)
Others 14.4 (11.6–17.8) 11.2 (8.7–14.2) 20.4 (17.1–24.1)
P value 0.008 0.067 0.044
Final say on visits to family or relatives
Respondent alone 17.4 (14.5–20.8) 9.9 (7.6–12.6) 21.7 (18.5–25.3)
Respondent & Husband 18.5 (16.8–20.2) 8.8 (7.6–10.1) 21.5 (20.7–24.4)
Husband alone 22.4 (20.0–25.0) 13.5 (11.6–15.7) 27.8 (25.2–30.6)
Others 17.9 (14.7–21.7) 11.1 (8.5–14.3) 23.5 (19.8–27.5)
P value 0.022 0.001 0.004
Who usually makes decisions about child’s health care
Respondent alone 20.0 (17.4–22.9) 10.8 (8.8–18.1) 24.9 (22.1–28.0)
Respondent & Husband 18.5 (16.9–20.3) 10.1 (8.8–11.5) 23.3 (21.5–25.2)
Husband alone 21.9 (18.9–25.2) 11.7 (9.5–14.3) 25.7 (22.5–29.1)
Others 16.8 (12.7–21.7) 8.0 (5.3–12.0) 21.0 (16.5–26.3)
P value 0.155 0.343 0.330
Does respondent go to health centre alone or with kids
No 17.8 (15.5–20.5) 10.8 (9.0–13.0) 22.6 (20.0–25.4)
Yes, alone 20.6 (18.9–22.5) 10.9 (9.6–12.4) 25.0 (23.1–26.9)
Yes, with children 16.3 (14.4–22.7) 8.6 (6.6–11.1) 22.3 (20.1–26.9)
With husband 16.8 (13.3–20.9) 9.0 (6.4–12.3) 21.8 (17.9–26.2)
With relatives/in laws/others 16.9 (11.7–23.6) 13.3 (8.7–19.7) 26.1 (19.7–33.6)
P value 0.204 0.257 0.441
J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420 417

Table 3 Adjusted odds ratio of women empowerment and decision–making variables and intimate partner violence (IPV) in the past 12 months
among married Bangladeshi women

Physical IPV, OR (95% CI) Sexual IPV, OR (95% CI) Both physical and/or sexual IPV, OR (95% CI)

Wealth index
Poorest 1.00 1.00 1.00
Poorer 0.95 (0.61–1.48) 0.86 (0.52–1.44) 0.85 (0.57–1.27)
Middle 0.95 (0.60–1.52) 0.70 (0.40–1.24) 0.80 (0.52–1.23)
Richer 0.64 (0.39–1.05)* 0.65 (0.36–1.15) 0.54 (0.34–0.85)*
Richest 0.39 (0.22–.0.69)* 0.44 (0.22–0.85)* 0.40 (0.24–0.66)*
Work Status
Not working 1.00 1.00 1.00
Currently working 1.69 (0.74–3.16)* 1.47 (0.70–3.06)* 1.35 (0.57–2.57)*
Who decides how to spend own money
Respondent alone 1.00 1.00 1.00
Respondent & Husband 1.10 (0.75–1.62) 0.84 (0.54–1.32)* 0.79 (0.60–1.39)*
Husband alone/others 1.34 (0.79–2.28)* 0.95 (0.60–2.04)* 0.99 (0.63–1.93)*
Final say on own health care
Respondent alone 1.00 1.00 1.00
Respondent & Husband 0.82 (0.48–1.40) 0.82 (0.44–1.55) 0.80 (0.49–1.31)
Husband alone/others 0.38 (0.22–0.67)* 0.48 (0.25–0.93)* 0.39 (0.23–0.66)
Final say on making large household purchases
Respondent alone 1.00 1.00 1.00
Respondent & husband 0.94 (0.50–1.76)* 1.40 (0.64–3.03)* 1.13 (0.63–2.03)*
Husband alone/others 1.15 (0.58–2.28)* 1.55 (0.67–3.55) 1.41 (0.75–2.67)*
Final say on making household purchases for daily needs
Respondent alone 1.00 1.00 1.00
Respondent & Husband 0.88 (0.58–1.33) 0.79 (0.48–1.31) 0.88 (0.60–1.28)
Husband alone/others 1.15 (0.42–1.56)* 1.41 (0.60–1.70) 1.21 (0.54–1.43)*
Final say on visits to family or relatives
Respondent alone 1.00 1.00 1.00
Respondent & husband 0.81 (0.45–1.44) 0.68 (0.34–1.32) 0.80 (0.47–1.35)*
Husband alone/others 0.79 (0.61–2.82)* 0.81 (0.46–2.47)* 0.86 (0.73–2.65)*
Who usually makes decisions about child’s health care
Respondent alone 1.00 1.00 1.00
Respondent & husband 1.03 (0.64–11.66) 1.11 (0.63–1.95) 0.96 (0.62–1.47)
Husband alone/others 1.07 (0.61–1.87) 1.53 (0.42–1.72) 1.32 (0.49–1.47)

Adjusted for age, place of residence and education

*Statistically significant (P<0.05)

women may be least likely to report physical or sexual
violence. When the husband has power to decide his wife’s
earnings and making decisions on large and daily household
purchases, then women experience more physical violence.
On the other hand, when women themselves make decisions
with their own health care and visit to family or relatives,
they also suffer more from physical and sexual violence.
Both findings indicate that husbands wish to dominate and
they are not ready to accept women’s decision in the
household. The reason behind this may be that Bangladeshi
society operates in a patriarchal culture that upholds the
secondary or subordinate status of women in male–female
relationships. This idea of submissiveness is believed to be
very pervasive in the region to the extent that it affects the
context and type of decisions women and men make within
the home. Thus, Hindin and Adair (2002) report that the
greater the number of decision-making domains that men
dominate, the more likely they are to use intimate partner
violence. However, the relationship between decision-
making patterns and domestic violence is more complex
than this. Indeed, the same study found that when women
dominate household decisions, they also are more likely to
418 J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420

Table 4 AOR of currently married women experienced different form of IPV in the 12 months preceding the survey

Women empowerment Physical Sexual Both physical and/or Physical IPV, Sexual IPV, Both physical and/or
indicators IPV (%) IPV (%) sexual IPV (%) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) sexual IPV, OR (95% CI)

Participation in household decision–making

0 17.3 11.2 22.2 1 1 1
1–3 22.6 11.9 27.6 0.89 (.69–1.15) 1.19 (.87–1.63)* 0.93 (.74–1.18)
4–5 18.5 9.3 22.8 1.26 (1.05–1.50)* 1.3 (1.03–1.63)* 1.26 (1.07–1.48)*
P value 0.005 0.051 0.004
Acceptance of wife beating
0 17.0 9.6 21.8 1 1 1
1–3 23.3 10.7 27.0 0.56 (.43–.72)* 0.53 (.39–.72)* 0.56 (.44–.71)*
4–5 25.4 16.0 32.2 0.84 (.64–1.1)* 0.59 (.42–.82)* 0.75 (.58–.97)*
P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Adjusted for age, place of residence and education

*Statistically Significant (P<0.05)

experience intimate partner violence, thus lending support to
the notion that violence may be a response to a man’s feeling
of powerlessness.
We tried to explore how women’s empowerment
indicators (participation in household decision-making
and acceptance of wife beating) were related to IPV
among Bangladeshis. It is expected that women who
participated in making household decisions are more
likely to have gender-egalitarian beliefs and to reject wife
beating. But our findings indicate that, along with the
number of decision-makings participated by wives,
experience of physical and sexual violence from hus-
bands increases. This is also in agreement with results
obtained earlier (Koenig et al. 2003; Okenwa et al. 2009).
Again women who justified their beating for at least one
reason or more, their chance of experiencing all forms of
IPV is less. We did not find a definite pattern between
women’s participation in household decision-making and
the forms of violence they experience. Our study findings
also contrast to the expectation that the risk of experienc-
ing domestic violence will decrease when women have
more autonomy and greater participation in household
decision making (Koenig et al. 2003). It is possible that
some women who were abused by their spouses, allowed
their spouses to make major decisions in order to avoid
conflict. So, fairly this study findings indicate that we
cannot guarantee that women’s empowerment will reduce
the risk of IPV.
The main strength of this study includes the fact that
it was based on a nationally representative sample; it
used pre-tested well designed questionnaires together
with trained and educated interviewers for data collection
with a good reliability. But results of the current study
should be considered in light of several limitations. At
this point, we only have cross-sectional data on women
empowerment, decision-makings and abuse. Another
drawback is that this study is limited to economic
empowerment and some household decision-making
variables as autonomy only, and cannot depict a total
picture of the impact of women empowerment on
domestic violence. Our measures of IPV for this study
rely on women’s self reported data. It is unlikely that
women would report IPV without experiencing it, but it
is more likely that some women may not report
experiencing abuse. It is important to note that the
domestic violence module of BDHS 2007 was adminis-
tered to either one woman or one man per household.
Therefore, data on reported violence among couples are
not available from both members of the same couple. It
is clear that a better understanding of intimate partner
violence in marital relationships may require quantitative
measures that look at the factors associated with violence
as well as qualitative measures that capture the marital
dynamic from both partner’s perspectives.
Despite limitations, our results have potentially impor-
tant implications for health care professionals and policy
makers aimed at reducing domestic violence levels. The
current findings confirm that violence against wives by
their husbands is a shockingly prevalent problem in
Bangladesh. Empowering women cannot protect them from
IPV unless their husbands become conscious about their
wives’ equal rights. This paper provides evidence that
promoting women’s empowerment or autonomy without
the support of men in the community may put women at
risk of intimate partner violence. Although we do not show
causality, further research is needed to understand the ways
better in which women’s empowerment impacts on their
relationships and risk of violence.
J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420
References
Ahmed, S. M. (2005). Intimate partner violence against women:
experiences from women-focused development programme in
Matlab, Bangladesh. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutri-
tion, 23(1), 95–101.
Aklimunnessa, K., Khan, M. M. H., Kabir, M., & Mori, M. (2007).
Prevalence and correlates of domestic violence by husband
against wives in Bangladesh: evidence from a national survey.
The Journal of Men’s Health & Gender, 4(1), 52–63.
Ameen, N. (2005). Wife abuse in Bangladesh: An unrecognized
offence. Dhaka: The University Press Limited.
Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. (2009). Perpetration of intimate partner
aggression by men and women in the Philippines: prevalence and
associated factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(9),
1579–1590.
Barakat, A. M., Majid, M., Ara, R., Uddin, M. T., Hoque, S., Poddar,
A., et al. (2007). Budget allocation in a gender perspective: Issue
on tuberculosis, safe delivery, sports, science education in
secondary school, violence against women, women’s access to
commercial bank loan. Keynote paper presented at a National
Seminar on Budget Allocation in Gender Perspective, Bangla-
desh Economic Association and ActionAid, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
April 21, 2007.
Bates, L. M., Schuler, S. R., Islam, F., & Islam, M. K. (2004).
Socioeconomic factors and processes associated with domestic
violence in rural Bangladesh. International Family Planning
Perspectives, 30(4), 190–199.
Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1965). Husband and wives: The
dynamics of family living. New York: The Free Press.
Blumberg, R. L. (1991). Income under female versus male control:
Hypothesis from a theory of gender stratification and data from
the Third World. In R. L. Blumberg (Ed.), Gender, family and
economy: The triple overlap (pp. 97–127). Newbury Park: Sage.
Castro, R., Casique, I., & Brindis, C. D. (2008). Empowerment and
physical violence throughout women’s reproductive life in
Mexico. Violence Against Women, 14(6), 655–677.
Dunkle, K. L., Jewkes, R. K., Brown, H. C., Gray, G. E., McIntryre, J.
A., & Harlow, S. D. (2004). Gender-based violence, relationship
power, and risk of HIV infection in women attending antenatal
clinics in South Africa. Lancet, 263(9413), 1415–1421.
Dwyer, D., & Bruce, J. (1988). A home divided: Women and income in
the Third World. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L.,
Watts, C. H., et al. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner
violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on
women’s health and domestic violence. Lancet, 368(9543),
1260–1269.
Gelaye, B., Lam, N., Cripe, S. M., Sanchez, S. E., & Williams, M. A.
(2010). Correlates of violence response among Peruvian women
abused by an intimate partner. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
25(1), 136–151.
Gwatkin, D. R., Rutstein, S., Johnson, K., Pande, R. P., & Wagstaff,
A. (2000). Socio-economic differences in health, nutrition and
poverty. HNP/Poverty Thematic Group of The World Bank.
Washington: The World Bank.
Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending violence
against women. Population reports, series L, no 11. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population
Information Program.
Hindin, M. J. (2000). Women’s power and anthropometric status in
Zimbabwe. Social Science & Medicine, 51(10), 1517–1528.
Hindin, M. J., & Adair, L. S. (2002). Who’s at risk? Factors associated
with intimate partner violence in the Philippines. Social Science
& Medicine, 55(8), 1385–1399.
419
Jejeebhoy, S. J. (1998). Association between wife-beating and fetal
and infant death: impressions from a survey in rural India.
Studies in Family Planning, 29(3), 300–308.
Jejeebhoy, S. J., & Cook, R. J. (1997). State accountability for wife-
beating: the Indian challenge. Lancet, 349, sI10–sI12.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic
violence in the 1990s: making distinctions. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 948–963.
Kabeer, N. (1999). Reversed realities: Gender hierarchies in devel-
opment thought. London: Verso.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: Wiley.
Kishor, S., & Jhonson, K. (2004). Profiling domestic violence: A
multi-country study. Calverton: ORC Macro.
Koenig, M. A., Ahmed, S., Hossain, M. B., & Mozumder, A. B. K. A.
(2003). Women’s status and domestic violence in rural Bangla-
desh: individual and community-level effects. Demography, 40
(2), 269–288.
Koenig, M. A., Stephenson, R., Ahmed, S., Jejeebhoy, S. J., &
Campbell, J. (2006). Individual and contextual determinants of
domestic violence in North India. American Journal of Public
Health, 96(1), 132–138.
Krantz, G. (2002). Violence against women: a global public health
issue. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(4),
242–243.
Krantz, G., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2005). Violence against women.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(10), 818–
821.
Lawoko, S. (2008). Predictors of attitudes towards intimate partner
violence: a comparative study of men in Zambia and Kenya.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(8), 1056–1074.
Mann, J. R., & Takyi, B. K. (2009). Autonomy, dependence or
culture: examining the impact of resources and socio-cultural
processes on attitudes towards intimate partner violence in
Ghana, Africa. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 323–335.
NIPORT (National Institute of Population Research and Training),
Mitra and Associates, & Macro International. (2009). Bangladesh
Demographic and Health Survey 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh and
Calverton, Maryland, USA: National Institute of Population
Research and Training, Mitra and Associates, and Macro
International.
Okenwa, L. E., Lawoko, S., & Jansson, B. (2009). Exposure to
intimate partner violence amongst women of reproductive age in
Lagos, Nigeria: prevalence and predictors. Journal of Family
Violence, 24, 517–530.
Oyediran, K. A., & Isiugo-Abanihe, U. C. (2005). Perception of
Nigerian women on domestic violence: evidence from 2003
Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. African Journal of
Reproductive Health, 9(2), 38–53.
Patel, V., Kirwood, B., Pednekar, S., Pereira, B., Barros, P., Fernandes,
J., et al. (2006). Gender disadvantage and reproductive health
risk factors for common mental disorders in Women. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 63(4), 404–413.
Rani, M., & Bonu, S. (2009). Attitude towards wife beating: a cross-
country study in Asia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(8),
1371–1397.
Rao, V. (1991). Wife-beating in rural southern India: a qualitative and
econometric analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 44(8), 1169–
1180.
Rocca, C., Rathod, S., Falle, T., Pande, R., & Krishnan, S. (2009).
Challenging assumptions about women’s empowerment: social
and economic resources and domestic violence among young
married women in urban South India. International Journal of
Epidemiology, 38(2), 577–585.
Roldan, M. (1988). Renegotiating the marital contact: Intrahousehold
patterns of money allocation and women’s subordination among
domestic outworkers in Mexico City. In D. Dwyer & J. Bruce
420
(Eds.), A home divided: Women and income control in the Third
World (pp. 229–247). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Schuler, S. R., Hashemi, S. M., Riley, A. P., & Akhter, S. (1996).
Credit programs, patriarchy and men’s violence against women
in rural Bangladesh. Social Science & Medicine, 43(12), 1729–
1742.
Sen, A. K. (1990). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker
(Ed.), Persistent inequalities: Women and world development.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Sidibe, N. D., Campnell, J. C., & Becker, S. (2006). Domestic
violence against women in Egypt—wife beating and health
outcomes. Social Science & Medicine, 62(5), 1260–1277.
Silverman, J. G., Gupta, J., Decker, M. R., Kapur, N., & Raj, A.
(2007). Intimate partner violence and unwanted pregnancy,
miscarriage, induced abortion, and stillbirth among a national
sample of Bangladeshi women. BJOG: An International Journal
of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114, 1246–1252.
Silverman, J. G., Decker, M. R., Saggurti, N., Balaiah, D., & Raj, A.
(2008). Intimate partner violence and HIV infection among
J Fam Viol (2011) 26:411–420
married Indian women. JAMA, the Journal of the American
Medical Association, 300(6), 703–710.
Stephenson, R., Koenig, M. A., & Ahmed, S. (2006). Domestic
violence and symptoms of gynecologic morbidity among women
in north India. International Family Planning Perspectives, 32
(4), 201–208.
Thomas, D. (1990). Intrahousehold resource allocation: an inferential
approach. The Journal of Human Resources, 25, 635–664.
UNICEF. (2000). Domestic violence against women and girls.
Innocenti Digest, 6, 1–26.
Vyas, S., & Watts, C. (2009). How does economic empowerment
affect women’s risk of intimate partner violence in low and
middle income countries? A systematic review of published
evidence. Journal of International Development, 21(5), 577–
602.
World Bank. (1993). World Development Report 1993: Investing in
health. New York: Oxford University Press.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). World report on health
and violence. Geneva: World Health Organization.