Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Faculty of Social Sciences

MASTER THESIS

Socio-Cultural Factors Consistently Exposing Women to Intimate Partner Violence in Three Selected African Countries

Field of study 38.04.04 Public Administration

Master's program `Population and Development'

Bamidele Emmanuel Ola

Reviewer Scientific Supervisor

Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) Associate Professor ( Ph.D.)

Svetlana S. Biryukova Isupova G. Olga

Moscow 2018



ABSTRACT

Several studies on the prevalence, forms and associated factors of intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) from different countries of the world have provided quite interesting results and reports on the IPV phenomenon. However, it is difficult to compare such results based on differences in methodologies and study rationale. To this end, knowledge of the cross-cultural dimensions of the IPV phenomenon from comparative and/or comparable studies using unified methodology has increasingly become desired. Such is necessary in drafting a somewhat unified approach and intervention design aimed at understanding, explaining, predicting and forestalling the increasingly persistent transcultural prevalence of IPV. This study therefore seeks to bridge this lacuna in knowledge by investigating the common main and specific factors associated with exposing and protecting sub-Saharan African women from IPV beyond national boundaries in three former British West African Countries - the Gambia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. The study is quantitative in design and borrows secondary data from nationally representative DHS domestic violence modules. Five multiple binary logistics regression models with results presented in ORs and aORs reveal certain individual, cultural and structural factors are consistent in their association with IPVAW beyond national boundaries. Thus, this paper extends our knowledge on the IPV phenomenon and recommends probable transnational ways of mitigating instances of IPVAW in Africa, and possibly elsewhere.

Keyword: Intimate Partner Violence Against Women, Consistent Factors, Gambia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sub-Saharan Africa



ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I thank God for the privilege of writing this paper successfully. I also appreciate my parents, brothers and sisters-in-laws, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, friends and all well-wishers for all their prayers and supports.

More importantly, I appreciate the contribution of my patient, intelligent and ever-reliable academic supervisor, Associate Professor Isupova Olga (PhD), for all her supports in the journey so far from attaining excellence in my Term Paper from where the journey of this cross-cultural and transnational study began. Ma, you highly inestimable.

I doff my hat and say big “Thank you” to my Academic Director, Associate Professor Vladimir Alesandrovich Kozlov, for his erudition and all time pushes to do what is right. We African students who studied in the Population and Development Program would never forget your impact in a jiffy. By telling me on a certain day, “You can just do anything”, you triggered in me a morale and motivation to conquer all that is conquerable in the academic, possibly without you realizing it.

I cannot but acknowledge the contribution of Associate Professor Dasa Kathrinak Celik for the brushings in statistical software and econometrics models. You are one in a trillion. The same thanks go to Associate Professor Vassily Anikin for his erudition and competences in econometric modelling. I appreciate my Professor who choose to make me a friend, Associate Professor Eren Arbatli. He was used to reduce my research focus from a very wide and laborious focus to a well-defined, sharpened and effective view, He told me, “Bamidele, One research, One Hypothesis!” Although I have five in this, of course after matching and mastering his hypothesis.

I also appreciate all the lecturers in Modern Public Management, Social Policy, Public Policy, and Public Health for all the knowledge gained in my studies with them, most of which have been factored professionally by me into this papers.

Finally, I thank the Federal Government of the Russian Federation (under the leadership of the President, Mr. Vladimir Putin), the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Rector and Staff of the National Research University Higher School of Economics for the ageless and lifetime opportunity to study at the HSE Moscow Russia as a Federal Government Quota Scheme Scholar. Thank you and God bless you richly.

Bamidele Emmanuel Ola

Moscow, 2018.



LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

IPV - Intimate Partner Violence

IPVAW - Intimate Partner Violence Against Women

IPVAM - Intimate Partner Violence Against Men

DV - Domestic Violence

NPC - National Population Commission

PRB - Population Reference Bureau

WHO - World Health Organization

UN - United Nations

UNICEF - United Nations Children and Educational Funds

VAW - Violence Against Women

LSMTH - London School of Tropical Medicine

DHS - Demographic and Health Survey

GBOS - The Gambia Bureau of Statistics (GBOS)

FGM - Female Genital Mutilation

FGC - Female Genital Cutting

HIV - Human Immuno-deficiency Virus

NOS - National Office of Statistics

NBS - National Bureau of Statistics

SSA - Sub-Saharan Africa

CEDAW - Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against

Women

GDHS - Gambia Demographic and Health Survey SLDHS

NDHS - Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey

SLDHS - Sierra Leone Demographic and Health Survey



CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Research Problem

Research Questions

Research Goal and Research Objectives

Novelty or Professional Significance of Study

Research Hypotheses

Research Design

Conceptual Definition of Terms

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 PREVALENCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

1.1.1 Findings on the Prevalence and Associated Factors of IPV Against Women in Africa and the World

1.2 A SOCIO-ANTHROPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF THE PEOPLES AND CULTURES OF THE GAMBIA, NIGERIA AND SIERRA LEONE

1.2.1 Regional and Composition in the Gambia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria

1.2.1.1 The Gambia Ethnic, Socio-Demographic and Gender Relations

1.2.1.2 The Sierra Leone Ethnic, Socio-Demographic and Cross-Cultural Gender Relations

1.2.1.3 The Nigeria Ethnic, Socio-Demographic and Cross-Cultural Gender Relations

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Defining Intimate Partner Violence

2.3 IPV, VAW and Waves of Feminist Movements to Eradicate IPV in the World

2.4 Factors Promoting IPV and Violence Against Women

2.5 Husband Factors Found in Previous Literature

2.6 The Controversies in Literature of IPV

2.6.1 Inconsistencies in Relationship between Woman Empowerment Status and Experience of IPVAW

2.7 The Consequences and Aftermaths of IPVAW

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO RELEVANT THEORIES

3.2 The Bio-Psychosocial Model

3.3 The Marital Power Theory

3.4 The Socio-Ecological Model

3.4.1 Levels of Social Ecological Investigations and Relevance to Current Study

3.5 The Social Learning Theory (SLT)

3.6 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

3.6.1 Explanation of Conceptual Model

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Research Design

4.2 Database and Sample Size

4.3 Measurements, Coding, Variables and Regression Models

4.4 Formal Logistic Models

4.5 Results and Findings

4.6 Prevalence of IPVAM by country

4.7 Results of the logistic regression analysis

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary and Discussion of Findings

Recommendation

Limitation of Study

References

APPENDIX 1 - 4



INTRODUCTION

Research Problem

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has continued to thrive and undermine the health, wealth, potentials and general well-being of women globally (Garcia-Moreno et. al, 2013). Now, the epidemic of IPV is high in sub-Saharan Africa; it ranks third only to WHO South East Asia and Middle East Mediterranean Regions with 36.7%, 37.0% and 37.7% IPV prevalence (WHO, 2013).

Consequences of IPV are grave, ranging from less severe to life threatening ones, and at the extreme, femicide (WHO, 2012). Sadly, WHO (2017) report shows that as at November 2017, about 38% of all female death were as a result of IPV perpetrated by their intimate partners (WHO, 2017). IPV against women poses a complex challenge ranging from physical, economic, emotional, health and social challenges to the sufferer (Campbell, 2002; Campbell, et. al, 2003; Ruiz-Pérez, Plazaola-Castaño., & del Río-Lozano, 2007; WHO, 2013) as well as to the State.

The identification of the universality and need to eliminate the phenomenon of violence against women was particularly at the centre of discussions and the final resolution of the UN General Assembly of 20th December, 1993, and culminated into the drafting of the 1993 United Nations Declaration of on the Elimination of Violence against Women (UN, 1993). It has been more two decade now, yet intimate partner violence (IPV) thrives across all countries and continents of the world (UN, 2017). More recently, in August 2015, the UN replaced the 8-point Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with a 17-point Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) - the 5th Goal of which is directly centered on achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls the world over. That was over twenty-five year ago yet 36 per cent of African women still suffer from several forms of violence from their male partners. The realization of this high prevalence and the need to better diagnose the problem with a view to proffering well-informed recommendations on prevalent forms and best practices to curtailing the IPV phenomenon is at the center of this paper.

According to the World Health Organization (2012), IPV is defined as “any behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in that relationship” (WHO, 2012). Such behavior could include: (i.) Physical acts of aggression, (or physical IPV) such as “slapping, hitting, kicking or beating”, (ii) “Psychological abuse,(emotional IPV) - intimidation, constant belittling and so on (iii) Sexual abuse or rape (sexual IPV), and (iv) Husband-controlling behavior such as limiting a woman's movement, exercising acts of jealousy or being unnecessarily suspicious of her, thus, limiting her freedom (WHO, 2012). Manifesting any of these four forms of women abuse can be rightly termed IPV. And, more technically, IPV against women (IPVAW).

According to Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black and Mahendra (2015), IPV against women could be perpetrated by either or both former or present spouses, “boyfriends or girlfriends, dating partners, ongoing sexual partners” whether co-habiting or not. However, the current study investigates only violence in heterosexual relationships in tandem with most studies in Africa (NPC, 2014). While it is also needful to mention early that intimate partner violence could sometimes be perpetrated by women against men. This has been termed IPV against men (IPVAM) (Felson, 2002; Dutton & Green, 2006; Lewis, 2009), although there is currently scarcity of data and studies on this dimension of IPV (Woolf, 2014), especially in current Africa (Bowmann, 2013).

Meanwhile despite that several studies on the subject of intimate partner violence against women exist (Odujirin, 1993; Okenwa-Emegwa, L., Lawoko, S., & Jansson, 2016; Hines, & Douglas, 2010), comparing their results at the international level in order arrive at helpful recommendations suitable for international policy interventions has been a major challenge (Abramsky et. al., 2011). Thus, understanding those factors that expose/protect women from intimate partner violence beyond cultural and national boundaries in single studies has become more desirable. To this end, attaining such comparative reports underscores the rationale of this study.

Research Questions

This paper attempts to achieve to foregoing therefore. Its main research questions include: Why do men hurt women in these societies in Africa? What categories of women are more or less likely to be exposed to IPV than others, and how consistent are such factors in their relationship to IPV experience against women across the three selected West African Countries? More precisely, are there generally common or specific individual, cultural, cross-cultural and structural factors consistent in exposing (or protecting) ever-partnered women from IPV in and across these Countries? Put succinctly, the paper attempted to answer the following fundamental questions on IPV prevalence and dynamics in sub-Saharan Africa:

What forms and to what extent is IPVAW prevalent within each, and across, all the selected countries?

What socio-cultural, attitudinal, demographic and economic factors are associated with IPVAW in each country and how consistent is the relationship across all?

More specifically, what probable role(s) does each of the following potential factors play in their relationship to IPVAW and how consistent are the relationships across all the selected countries: women's attitude towards IPV, spousal relative income, parental history of violence, husband controlling behavior - and how consistent are the relationships across all the countries?

Finally, what are the possible ways of mitigating instances of IPVAW in each of these societies based on the empirical findings in this paper?

These are the four fundamental questions attempted and provided probable answers to in this paper.

Research Goal and Research Objectives

The purpose of the current study is to reveal the main common and specific factors associated with exposing and protecting ever-partnered women from Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in three African countries.

More specifically, the main objectives of the current study are:

To investigate the prevalence rate of each forms of IPVAW by region in each of the selected Countries,

To ascertain potential socio-cultural factors that are significantly associated with women's exposure to IPVAW in each Country,

To comparatively measure and ascertain which of the factors are consistent (and/or inconsistent) in their relationship to IPVAW experience across all countries,

To proffer probable recommendations to mitigate instance and prevalence rates and instances of IPV against women in each of these African Countries, and,

To add to the few existing literature dedicated to investigating patterns of IPV women.

Novelty or Professional Significance of Study

Although more recently than ever, discussions on findings in conventional nation-based studies on the prevalence and associated risk factors of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women (IPV) seem to have acknowledged the weaknesses in comparing and generalizing results from such (Abramsky et. al, 2011; WHO, 2013; Gracia & Merlo 2016), yet very few cross-country studies on IPV are available, especially in current literatures on IPV in Africa. Admittedly, findings from nation-based studies are difficult to compare due to differentials in objectives and methodology of each study (Abramsky et. al, 2011). To this end, there is need for a study which employs comparable data, similar methodology, and if necessary similar models of data processing and analysis in order to ensure the possible comparability of findings across countries. This would help provide a more generalizable findings and comparable explanations as determined by the scope of study. This underscore the raison d'etre of this paper.

The cross-country tests of consistent factors of IPVAW beyond hitherto conventional nation-based approach in the study of IPV provide this study with a strong relevance and novelty in literatures and studies of IPV, especially in African literature. Following the fundamental question posed by Abramsky, et. al (2011), “What Factors are Associated with Recent Intimate Partner Violence?” I posit to answer this question providing relevant insights from current empirical situation of ever-in-union women facing IPV in three selected African countries.

My findings would help provide some of the much anticipated scientific information needed to formulate more reliable and effective near-global policies on the prevention, alleviation and eradication of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women worldwide, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. My findings will be of crucial importance to both national and international governmental and non-governmental agencies and other stakeholders interested in the alleviation of women's sufferings from IPV, the promotion of gender equality and equity (SDG 5), protection of women's right, and their general well-being universally.

Research Hypotheses

The following are the five main hypotheses drawn up from a large body of literatures, relevant theories and current trends in discussions on IPV in several countries of the world:

Women who justify IPV for any reason will be more likely to experience IPV compared to their counterparts who refuse to justify IPV for any reason [Testing Between Attitude towards IPV and Actual IPV Experience]

Women whose father beat their mother will be more likely to experience IPV compared to their counterparts whose father did not beat their mother [Testing Between Parental History of Violence and Woman's Actual IPV Experience]

Women who earn income less than their husband's are more likely to experience IPV than their counterparts who earn about same as, or more than husband. [Testing Between Relative Income and IPV Experience

Women whose husband/partner manifest any form of control over her will manifest higher likelihood of experiencing IPV compared to women whose husband/partner does not…. [Testing Between Husband controlling behavior and Woman's Actual IPV Experience]

Women whose husband/partner drink alcohol will manifest higher likelihood of experiencing IPV compared to women whose husband/partner does not. [Testing Between Woman's IPV Experience and Husband's Alcohol Consumption Behavior].

Research Design

I employed the nationally representative Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data of the Gambia (2013), Nigeria (2013) and Sierra Leone (2013) in order to investigate and provide answers to the research questions. The DHS is a survey conducted usually every five years interval with funds from the United Stated Agency for International Development. The DHS covers issues related to “population, health and nutrition” (DHS, 2018).

The DHS uses an internationally standardized questionnaire thus making comparison among countries possible.

Of all, a total sample of 28, 571 ever-partnered women aged 15 to 49 years were interviewed in all the three countries in the year 2013: 3,237 women in the Gambia, 21,196 in Nigeria, and 4,138 in Sierra Leone. It is noteworthy that this study also captures some reports about the socio-demographic profile of husbands/partners with whom the women are in relationship. Saliently, all never-in-union women who participated in the current DHS Domestic Violence module employed were excluded from the study in order to account solely for ever-partnered women whose experience of violence from at least a “partner” (hence, IPV) constitute the main objectives of this study.

Data analyses include univariate, bivariate and multivariate levels of analysis. Bivariate analysis were first conducted and their significance was tested using Pearson Chi-Square Tests of Analysis in order to provide a preliminary insights into the potential relationships between selected socio-cultural factors drawn from review of relevant literatures and theories and actual experience of IPV among women. Furthermore, five simple binary logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the independent association of each of the five potential socio-cultural factors constituting the statements of hypotheses briefly mentioned above and women's experience of IPV in each country. Finally, multiple binary logistic regression models were fitted, first to examine the relationships of all five potential correlates of IPV against women in a single model, and thereafter, control variables were included in order to see the weights of these on the carefully selected models. Some of the models feature some interaction effects to report near empirical situations. Results are reported in Odds Ratios (ORs) and Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) using Stata Version 13.

Conceptual Definition of Terms

The following terms and technical abbreviations are used in this paper:

a. IPV - IPV is an acronym for Intimate Partner Violence and is used to measure violence between two or more people in usually marital heterosexual relationship. It measures violence perpetrated solely by partners such as current or past husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend. This means IPV could be perpetrated by either sex against the other. Thus, the type of IPV if further differentiated with as follows:

IPVAW - Intimate Partner Violence Against Women or also written as IPV against women. However, in the current paper, IPVAW is sometimes shortened to IPV and could be used interchangeably except where otherwise stated.

IPVAM - As I propose elsewhere, IPVAM concept is novel to this paper. It refers to violence by women against their intimate partners “when he was not hurting her”. This variable was directly investigated in this paper to account for the effect of this phenomenon on IPVAW. There is a growing interesting in IPVAM as evidenced by a growing number of literatures mostly from the Western societies (Felson, 2002; Eva & Buzawa 2003; Woods 2007; Dutton, 2011; Woolf, 2014), but less studied in developing countries especially Africa (Cornell). By collecting this variable in the DHS helps to see how women in some instances could trigger instances of IPVAW as becoming a focus in northern America, especially the United States, but less in Africa (Bowman, 2003). IPV is usually measured using three PSE forms - physical violence (this include less severe violence and severe violence), emotional violence and sexual violence. In the current paper, IPV experience refers to an event in which a woman experiences any of physical, emotional, or sexual violence from male partners or husband (WHO, 2012). Generally, two forms of prevalence of IPV could be measured. First, is lifetime prevalence of IPV and second is the prevalence of IPV in the last 12 months preceding survey.

Lifetime prevalence of IPV - This refers to woman ever experiencing any physical, sexual or emotional IPV since age 15.

Last 12 Months Prevalence of IPV: This measures the current prevalence of IPV within the last twelve months as reported by the women themselves. It should be that both types of prevalence were employed in this paper in order to capture the lifetime and current prevalence of IPV as self-reported by the women themselves.

Physical violence: This consists of two types based on levels of severity - “less severe” physical violence (slapping, kicking, and so on) and “severe” physical violence (choking, burning, and so on).

Sexual Violence: It entails physically forcing a woman to perform any unwanted sexual acts against her wish or physically having a forced sexual intercourse with her.

Emotional Violence: This entails humiliating a woman especially in the presence of others, making her to feel bad about herself, threatening to hurt her or someone she cares about. All these constitute acts of emotional violence against women.

Frequency of IPV: It is instructive to note that women experienced violence from their partners at different frequencies. Some more and some less often. Frequencies of IPVAW within countries studied are also covered and reported in this paper. Examples of internationally standardized measurements of frequencies used include the following categories: (a) Never (b) Sometimes (c) Often, and, (d) Yes, but not in 12 months.

Note that categories (b) and (c) above are used to measure 12-month IPV in each and all countries (see NPC & ICF International, 2014; GBOS & ICF International, 2013; SSL & ICF International, 2014).

b. Husband Controlling Behavior: Another novel and important factor tested in this paper is the husband controlling behavior. This entails when a husband/partner manifests any of the following: “(i) Is jealous if woman talks with other men (ii) Accuses her of unfaithfulness (iii) Does not permit her to meet female friends (iv) Tries to limit her contact with family (v) Insists on knowing where she is”.

c. VAW - This refers to Violence Against Women. This includes IPV but is wider in scope as it covers all forms of gender-based violence against women. This includes, but is not limited to, domestic violence (DV), Female Genital Cutting (FGC), Widow Inheritance, Widowhood practices, and other acts of violence perpetrated against women by cultures in any country or culture.

d. Acceptance of IPV: This variable is used to measure women's attitude towards IPV. There are five hypothetical scenarios widely used to measure people's attitude towards IPV (Uthman, Lawoko, & Moradi, 2009; Pierotti, 2013). In order to measure acceptance of IPV, or more technically “wife beating”, women aged 15 to 49 years were asked if they accepted that it was justified for a man to hit or beat his wife if she - (a) “goes out without telling him”, (b) “neglects the children”, (c) “argues with him”, (d) “refuses to have sex with him”, and, (e) “burns the food” (Uthman et. al, 2009; Oyediran, 2016). In most studies, and as done in this, all women who justify wife beating in at least any one of the hypothetical scenarios are grouped into one category and are usually differentiated from women who never justify wife beating in any scenario. It would be very meaningful for better understanding and its implication on policy recommendation to examine how many women in each country and across each country's region are more or less likely to justify IPV and for what reason they do so. Since justification for IPV among women has been found to have a positive correlation with actual experience of IPV against women in certain countries (Uthman et. al, 2009; WHO, 2012; Garcia-Moreno, 2013), it would be very important to see how consistent this relationship is within and across the three selected west African countries studied in this paper.

Arguably, in places where laws prohibiting violence against women are weak or non-existent and available cultural norms tends to justify IPV, many women continue to suffer from different forms of IPV (WHO, 2013). And sadly, most of these women-victims somewhat helplessly internalize wife beating as “normal” (Touray, 2006; Uthman et. al, 2011; Mannell & Jackson, 2014; Ola, 2017), especially if they are with lower levels of education (Uthman, et. al, 2009; Hindin, 2003; Lawoko, 2006; Uthman, Moradi & Lawoko, 2009; Okenwa-Emegwa, et. al, 2016). This appears to be the case in most sub-Saharan African countries. Thus, it might be very difficult for such women to report abuse since it is “normal”, even though it is obviously contrary to their will (Touray, 2006; WHO, 2013). Such situation of helplessness has tendencies to continue to fuel and encourage men' further advances in the perpetration of IPV against women by their intimate partners. However, owing to differences in levels of female social status such as education and economic empowerment across cultures, communities, households and relationships, it might be useful to see how IPV experiences and prevalence actually varies inproportion to either women's acceptance or rejction of IPV across cultures, and beyond national boundaries. This underscores one of the essence of this study. We investigate whether there is any statistically significant differences in women's experience of IPV along the lines of their attitude of acceptance or rejection of IPV within and across countries.

Measuring attitudes towards IPV by women's acceptance or rejection of each of the given five hypothetical scenarios, we compare and present result of variation in IPV experience between categories of women who entirely reject IPV (Wife beating) as justified in all hypothetical scenarios as compared to women who tend to justify IPV in at least in one scenario (at least one), in two scenarios (somewhat justified) or in three or all scenarios (very justified).

More precisely, this paper decongests women's attitude towards IPV/wife beating into three categories: (a) Women who never justify IPV in all scenarios - Never justified (b) Women who justify IPV on only one or two occasions (2 out of 5, that is 40%, less than half) - this category could be regarded to have accepted that wife beating was Somewhat justified; and (c) Women who justify IPV on 3 to 5 (60%-100%) - this group of women could be said to have accepted that wife beating was Very justified. This typology helps to further ascertain how IPV experiences among women vary according to levels of acceptance, beyond the dummy categories earlier purported. This three-scale approach is also unique to this paper.

e. Regions/GPZ/LGAs/Provinces/Communities-Level: GPZ represents Geo-Political Zones, also called Regions. LGAs represents Local Government Area. In Nigeria, GPZ is the official term used to describe the geographical clustering of cultures and states in country. The word Provinces is used in Sierra Leone in the same sense, while in the Gambia, the term Local Government Areas (LGA's) is used to describe geographical clustering of the population for census and survey purposes. In the DHS data, the general term used in most countries is Region and applies to the same sense.



CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 PREVALENCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

1.1.1 Findings on the Prevalence and Associated Factors of IPV Against Women in Africa and the World

Intimate Partner Violence Against Women (IPVAW) has been a topic of hot debates and wide studies owing to its practical application to the lives and well-being of over 3.6 billion women and girls, who currently constitute about half (49.6%) of the world's total population (World Bank, 2018). IPV against women is global public health challenge (WHO, 2013) and currently constitutes a major barrier to the realization of the full potentials of these 3.69 billion women and girls worldwide (World Bank, 2018; Tjaden, 2000; Ruiz-Pérez, Plazaola-Castaño, & del Río-Lozano, 2007; WHO, 2012).

Indisputably, instances of IPV often results in serious damaging physical, mental, economic, and social consequences on women, and sometimes, on her significant others as well, especially her poor dependent children (WHO, 2012). Prominent scholars such as Tjaden and Thoennes (2000), Campbell et. al (2002), Garcia-Moreno et. al (2006), Ellsberg et. al (2008), Vives-Cases et. al (2010), among others, have provided a catalogue of such damaging consequences from women's experiences in many different countries, across all continents. These include husband/partner-caused injury in the head, neck, breasts, abdomen, reproductive organs, strains, fractures, loss of teeth, lacerations, bone damage, loss of sight and hearing, traumatic and posttraumatic disorders, low and poor self-esteem, irrational fear, thoughts of suicide among women, alcohol and drug abuse, depressions, and, at its extreme, permanent disability or premature death (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Campbell et. al, 2002; Garcia-Moreno et. al, 2006; Ellsberg et. al, 2008; Vives-Cases, Ruiz-Cantero, Escribà-Agüir & Miralles, 2010; WHO. 2012).

And, worse, should IPV occur during pregnancy, women-victims [and their fetuses] stand the risks of suffering from miscarriages, stillbirths, premature labor, and delivery, intrauterine growth retardation, among others negative consequences (Devries, Kishor, Johnson, Stöckl, Bacchus, Garcia-Moreno & Watts, 2010; WHO, 2011; Flanagan, Gordon., Moore, & Stuart, 2015, p. 66).

Unfortunately, African women, both in the northern and sub-Saharan regions, stand a higher risks of suffering the IPV menace more than most other regions of the world (WHO, 2013). This is because Africa currently presents a high prevalence of IPV on the global scale, second only to Southeast Asia and the “Arabian” Mediterranean regions (WHO, 215). In Africa today, more than one-third of every ever-partnered woman reported to have suffered and been subjected to one form of violence from their intimate male partner at least one time or the other in their relationships (WHO, 2012; 2013; NPC & ICF International, 2014). This could especially be worse for married or cohabiting women who share common household with men possessing or manifesting certain characteristics (WHO, 2012; 2013).

For sake of analysis, a quick glossary of empirical reports on instances and prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence against women from different parts (regions) and countries in Africa. Prevalence of IPV in eastern Africa gives a startling figure. For instance, ranging from a high lifetime prevalence of physical IPV of 51.7%, sexual IPV of 59%, and emotional IPV of 51.7% against women in Ethiopia (summarizing the prevalence rates across 14 years from 2000 to 2014 by Semahegn & Mengistie, 2015), to even a higher rate of 63% of physical, sexual and/or emotional IPV against women in Uganda (WHO, 2014), African women suffer severely from severely from violence from their male intimate partners, and of course, with its attendant negative consequences.

Worse off, in Northern Africa [WHO Mediterranean region], close to 80% of (rural) Egyptian women have reported to have experienced frequent beatings from their male partners, but, surprisingly, most of these women somehow justify wife beating, especially if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband (UNFPA, 2009).

In the Southern region of Africa, South Africa was reported to have the highest prevalence of violence against women, especially sexual violence from male partners in the world (Foster 1999; Joyner et. al, 2015; Jewkes, Dunkle, Nduna, & Shai, 2010), and the attendant potentiality to spread HIV/AIDS and other STI's in the Country, especially through sexual violence (Dunkle et. al, 2004; Jewkes et. al, 2010).

In Western Africa, Ghana is reported to have a lifetime prevalence of physical and/or sexual violence of 22.9%, with 20% of these occurring within the last 12 months preceding the 2008 DHS. Being a dominant figure in West Africa, Nigeria contributes largely to the regional and global prevalence of IPVAW, about two-tenth (20%) of all ever-partnered women in Nigeria reported have suffered from IPV, and one-tenth of these within the 12 months preceding the survey (UN Women, 2016). As the most populated single Black Country on earth, Nigeria currently contributes 10% to global prevalence of IPV against women (Gender in Nigeria Report, 2012).

The report of prevalence are not too different in other countries in Africa (WHO, 2013). In central Africa, lifetime prevalence of physical IPVAW is 44.8%, 16% sexual IPVAW, and 41% emotional IPVAW.

More women in Africa suffer from IPV during pregnancy than any other continents in the world. This was a discovery made in Devries, Kishor, Johnson, Stöckl, Bacchus, Garcia-Moreno, & Watts (2010) in a comparative analysis of prevalence of IPV against women during pregnancy in 19 countries of the world. From the analysis, Uganda has at least 13.5% of ever-pregnant women who reported experiencing IPV during pregnancy.

For sake of emphasis, global statistics from the World Health Organization (2013) shows that nearly one out of every three women who have ever been in a relationship have suffered intimate partner violence at one stage of their marital relationship or the other and, sadly, about 38% of these women murdered in the world die as a result of IPV (WHO, 2013, pg. 2). Obviously, there are regional disparities worldwide. From about “one-fourth (24.6%) of women in the Western Pacific, 25.4% in the WHO Europe region, nearly one-third (28.9%) in the WHO American region, 36.6% in WHO African region, to as high as 37.0% women in WHO Eastern Mediterranean, and 37.7% in South-East Asia”, IPV has become a much prevalent problem suffered by women across the world (WHO, 2012).

Despite the shockingly negative consequences and high prevalence of IPV against women in Africa, African scholars have less investigated consistent factors of IPV beyond national boundaries in Africa. As at today, there are few cross-cultural and transnational studies from Africa on Africa on this theme (Abramsky et. al, 2011; WHO, 2013). To a large extent, individual nation-based studies exist. This include IPVAW in Ghana (IDS, GSS and Associates, 2016; Osei-Tutu, Ellen Mabel and Ampadu, Ernest, 2017), in South Africa (Joyner, Rees & Honikman, 2015), in the Gambia (Idoko, Ogbe, Jallow, & Ocheke, 2015), among others. It should be noted that Abramsky et. al (2011) paper studied the IPVAW phenomenon beyond national boundaries among ten Countries, selected worldwide. Although three of the countries studied are from Africa: Namibia (in Southern Africa), Ethiopia and Republic of Tanzania (both in East Africa); no country is included from West Africa. Thus, it would be important to close this lacuna as well as compare results where necessary in order to ascertain consistent factors of IPV in West Africa among selected West African Countries also. This goal further justifies the rationale and significance of this study.

Several factors have been identified in previous literatures as having the potential to expose or protect women from IPV. Interestingly, these factors can be rightly grouped into five categories as levels of analysis, especially based on their origin, as theoretically suggested by Heise (1998). These are the Individual level factors, Husband-Wife Relationship factors, Immediate Family factors, Community Level factors, and the Larger Society factors.

First, the Individual factors include male and/or female low literacy level (WHO, 2013; Kwagala, Wandera, Ndugga & Kabagenyi, 2013), “if husband drinks alcohol” (WHO, 2012; Kwagala, Wandera, Ndugga & Kabagenyi, 2013; UN, 2015). The Second level factors, the Husband-wife relationship factors, also known as spousal relative factors include Spousal relative income (Atkinson et. al, 2005, Aizer, 2010; Abramsky et. al, 2013; Ola (2017); relative age or “age disparity” (Fanuel Otieno, Beauclair & Delva, 2016)) and overdependence on husband (Hindin & Adair, 2002; Rahman et. al, 2011).

The third level factors, the Immediate Familial Level, include Family poverty - measured as low household wealth index (Rani, Bonu and Diop-Sidibe, 2004; Doku and Asante, 2015). Fourth level factors associated with women's experience of IPV are Community-level factors such as predominant norm of acceptance of IPV, and type of residence, that is, living in urban or rural areas (Deyessa et. al, 2010; Edwards, 2015; Tranchant & Mueller 2017).

The fifth and last level factors, the Larger Society factors include mainly the absence of (responsive) legal framework to protect women from IPV (Heise, 1998; Liang, Goodman, Tummala-Narra & Weintraub, 2005).

However, in addition to these factors, and the comparison challenge they pose, author's intelligent speculation reveals that certain potential factors seems to have been less investigated, especially in studies on IPV in current African literature. Such factors include (a) spousal relative income; (b) Influence of women who hurt husband first “when he was not hurting her” (b) relative control over household resources or participation in decision making, especially woman exercising forms of control over how to spend the money the husband earns and those whose husband earn no income. This could show the reverse of male dominance.

There is need to stress again that some of these findings are inconsistent and comparing results among these nation/community-based studies is very difficult, owing to differences in research methodology across studies (Abramsky et. al, 2011). To this end, there is greater need to identify which factors are consistently associated with instances of Intimate Partner Violence against women beyond national and cultural boundaries. This could help provide a more reliable view and wider scope of the IPV dimensions as sought and done in this study.

In order to achieve this goal, we investigate the prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and associated factors in three West African countries with available data on IPV. The interest in the current paper is not only to identify the factors associated with women's IPV experience in each country, but much more to compare how consistent each factor is across countries.

1.2 A SOCIO-ANTHROPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF THE PEOPLES AND CULTURES OF THE GAMBIA, NIGERIA AND SIERRA LEONE

This section provides an insight into the socio-anthropological, demographic and economic lifestyle of the peoples of the Gambia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. The essence of this section is to provide a foreknowledge of the dynamics of gender and gender relations in these societies as well as the cultural, structural and attitudinal factors that could in tandem with previous literature predict the likelihood of IPV against women.

All three Countries selected, the Gambia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, are multi-cultural in themselves. Nigeria is the most populous single black African country on earth. According to the2017 World Data Sheet, Nigeria had an estimated mid-year total population of 190.9 million people in 2017 (PRB, 2017). As a multi-ethnic country, the [Nigerian] National Population Commission (NPC) reported about 374 identifiable ethnic groups” with distinct cultural traits and affiliations occupying various settlements constituting the Country (NPC and ICF International, 2014, p. 1). Sierra Leone is also a multi-ethnic country, although not as diverse as Nigeria. There are 15 distinct ethnic groups (Statistics Sierra Leone & ICF International, 2014, p. 3) making up its estimated total population of 7.6 million people (PRB, 2017). The Gambia Bureau of Statistics and ICF International (2014) reported at least nine (9) ethnic groups in the Gambia (The Gambia Bureau of Statistics & ICF International, 2014, p. 32, 33), who constitute an estimated 2017 mid-year total population of 2.1 million people (PRB, 2017).



1.2.1 Regional and Composition in the Gambia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria

1.2.1.1 The Gambia Ethnic, Socio-Demographic and Gender Relations

The Gambia is a home to a number of ethnic groups and tribes. Based on the share of its ethnic composition, the Gambia is composed of “the Mandinka/Jahanka (34%), the Fulani / Tukulur / Lorobo 22.4%, the Wolof 12.6%, the Jola/Karoninka 10.7%, the Serahuleh 6.6%, the Serer 3.2%, the Manjago 2.1%, the Bambara 1%, the Creole/Aku Marabout 0.7%, other 0.9%, non-Gambian 5.2%, no answer 0.6%” (CIA Factbook, 2018, based on 2013 estimates). See Figure 1 below. These are organized into ten LGAs for censuses and surveys. The LGAs in the Gambia include: Banjul (Capital), Kanifing, Brikama, Masankoko, Kerewan, Kuntaur, Janjanbureh, and Basse.

Figure 1: The Geographical Distribution of the Peoples of the Gambia

Meanwhile agriculture remains the bedrock of the Gambian economy and there is still much dependence on the land (FAO, 2018), it is interesting to know that there exist smooth inter-ethnic relations and close dwelling among all the ethnic groups in the Gambia so much that there is no single “ part of the Gambia that is inhabited by one single ethnic group” (Everyculture.com, 2018), hence, there is a somewhat intermixing of cultures so much that the country is gearing towards a national culture (Everyculture.com, 2018), although this does not follow suit in the light of religion, religious interpretations, and attendant attitude towards life (International Religious Freedom Report, 2016). The Gambia has been known as a place for interreligious and intra-religious divisions (IRFR, 2016).

Demographically, out of an estimated total population of 2.1 million, there are more females than males, especially in the active labor force or reproductive age group 15 to 49 years: 53.1% females to 51.2% males (share of each to the total population; see Figure 2, based on the World Bank estimates, 2016). It might be instructive to state early that the differences are more evident in some regions than others and constitute certain aspects of gender relations (especially polygyny), among other socio-cultural factors that influence and could predict gender relation dynamism in the Gambia.

A report on gender relations in the Gambia by the GAMCOTRAP (Gambian Committee on Traditional Practices), a non-governmental organization based in the Gambia that work among local people on issues related to gender relations, sexuality and sexual rights, under the supervision of Isatou Touray, provides very useful insights on the situation of gender relations in this country.



Figure 2: Percentage share of Males and Females in the productive age group in the Gambia

First, gender issues are not the same all over the Gambia, there are obvious discrepancies in the experience of gender relations and sexuality among urban women compared to their counterparts in the rural areas. As revealed in Figure 3, there are more educated women in urban areas of the Gambia than there are in the rural area. As usual, the more educated women are, the more likely they are to know their rights or at least protect their fundamental human rights or privileges (Touray, 2006). This provides us an interesting factor to consider in the attitude or women towards wife beating as well as their fundamental rights of women towards certain rights such as their sexual rights, for instance, “if she has the right to refuse the husband sex” usually measured in DHS.



Overall, Gambia is a largely Islamic country with more than 90% of her population being Muslims (International Religious Freedom, 2018). Notwithstanding, factional or sectional differences in both the interpretations and applications of the Quran exist considerably between the Tablighi Muslims and the Sufi Muslims (Global Security, 2018), with the former accusing the latter of viewing and condemning them as religious “extremists” or “fundamentalists” (Global Security, 2018). Irrespective of the differences, there are various religious similarities in the relationships between these two groups in relation to issues of gender and women in the Gambia.

Polygyny, a situation in which a man marries more than one wife and holds them at the same time, is a common practice in the Gambia, and it is not uncommon to see much older men married to younger and uneducated women (Touray, 2006). Much of these practices have been attributed to the teachings of the Quran where men are told to,

“… marry women of your choice, two, three or

four; but if you feel you may not be able to deal

justly (with them), then only one … that is nearer

to prevent you from doing injustice.” (Koran, Ch. 4: 129)

Whereas this Quranic verse also gave a necessary precondition to men before considering polygyny - treating all wives equally and fairly - and tends to warn that most men would likely not be able to fulfil this precondition.

“… you will never be able to do perfect justice

between wives even if it is your ardent desire..” (Koran, Ch. 4: 129)

(Excerpts from Touray, 2006).

Not regarding the seeming warnings, most Gambian men have indulged in marrying more than one wives for various reasons and mostly do not treat these women with equally as prescribed (Touray, 2006). Some of the reasons men give to justify polygyny is the need for sex as wife grows older. Gambian men are reported to refrain from sex with their wives when they reach the stage of menopause and marry younger women. Since sex in marriage is considered the “prerogative rights” of the men, and it is a taboo for women to demand sex from men, not even from their own husband, such abandoned women are known to employ the traditional `nyefala tedah' (a form of `you'd better be in bed') aphrodisiacs or incense that is known to be potent in stimulating sexual and romantic urges in men and women in the Gambia. Using the `nyefala tedah' by a woman was an indirect way of asking for sex from the husband (Touray, 2006).

Conversely, men are believed to have all the rights there are to request for sex from their wives at any time, where and however he wants it. Refusal to cooperate by the women could lead to instances of domestic violence, more precisely, intimate partner violence, including marital rape - a term usually perceived as Western propaganda and cultural imperialism from global western political hegemon (Touray, 2006). Worse, sexually deprived women are equally more likely to be “abandoned” by the husband emotionally and economically in favor of the new young wife. With time, the new woman also becomes old and gets abandoned by the husband for another new wife. This has been a cycle common in polygynous unions in the Gambia.

Touray has reported that divorce (marital dissolution) in the Gambia is easy and the prevalence is high, especially when the motion is from men (Touray, 2006). According to her men are likely to divorce their wives on the ground of her refusal to have sex with him. Such men would often retort “`aka fang balingna leh' (she is denying me sex)”, although most women might be less likely to be willing to leave their husbands and children due to the threat of starting all over again (Touray, 2006). It is instructive to note that this report from Touray (2006) might reflect attitudes in most traditional settings in the Gambia.

However, according to “the Laws of the Gambia” that came into force on September 2009 (see the Appendixes 1-4) in Chapter 42:01, provisions were made for registration of marriages and divorce solely for residents in Banjul (only one out of ten delineated areas, as seen in this paper). Divorce was allowed in accordance to Islamic laws. Registrars of marriages and divorce were mandated to investigate requests and if convinced could dissolve marriages. The time needed to register and divorce was one month (The Laws of Gambia, page 12) and the applicant are also expected be pay a certain fee (see the Appendix for detail prescriptions of the Law of Gambia on marriage and marital dissolution). However, the question raised considering the high level of illiteracy and having no education among Gambia women (see Figure 3 above on educational attainment by Gambian women), it only stands to reason if the little “protective” provisions of the law making registration important is actually met with practice.

...