Research shows that the impact of women’s economic empowerment on her risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) in heterosexual relationships varies from context to context and is influenced by the following factors: 

• The extent to which the woman’s participation in training and/or livelihood activities takes her away from her home and ‘household duties’ - and whether her male partner reacts positively or negatively to this. 
• The length and stability of the economic benefit and how it affects the economic situation of the woman and her household. More stable, long-term economic benefits which significantly reduce financial pressures are more likely to lead to reductions in IPV. 
• The strength of specific gender norms around the circumstances in which women work and contribute income, women spending time outside the home, and how strongly men’s sense of masculinity is tied to the breadwinner role. Where norms are quite rigid, women’s working and/or bringing income may provoke violent backlash. 
• Who the intervention targets e.g. is a cash transfer given to the woman, her partner, or household? Is the livelihood or business skills training only given to the woman or does it also involve her male partner or other family members? In many contexts, involving male partners will be more likely to have positive impacts in terms of reducing violence. 
• How the intervention is presented to families and communities. In many contexts, presenting the intervention as contributing to family wellbeing, child health and nutrition will be less likely to provoke backlash than saying it is focused on women’s rights or empowerment. 

A growing body of evidence has shown that combining economic interventions such as microfinance with social empowerment interventions can help reduce levels of gender-based violence and is much less likely to provoke backlash. In most cases, this is the recommended approach. A couple of examples include: 

• Intervention with Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Equity (IMAGE) programme in South Africa: The intervention combined microfinance with participatory gender and HIV awareness education. IMAGE found a 55% reduction in reported sexual and/or physical violence by an intimate partner or relative among participants. 
• MAISHA in Tanzania: Assessed whether implementing a combined microfinance and social empowerment intervention would influence the rate of IPV compared to microfinance interventions alone. The trial combined microfinancing with 10 sessions of the MAISHA intervention—a social empowerment curriculum developed to empower women, promote healthy relationships, and help participants develop relationship skills. A 2-year follow up study found that within the microfinance and MAISHA intervention group, there was a reduction in either past-year physical or sexual IPV, or both, although more limited reductions occurred for sexual violence. Participants in the microfinance and MAISHA group were also less likely to be accepting of IPV, express beliefs that IPV is a private matter, or that a woman should tolerate IPV to keep her family together. 

When designing an appropriate intervention, it is important to conduct formative research to fully understand the context – including livelihood options, prevalent gender norms and risks of backlash – to determine which types of intervention might be most effective and acceptable.  

• In many contexts, especially where households are extremely poor, including in humanitarian crisis, cash or in-kind transfers, accompanied by gender transformative action or behaviour change communications may be the best option. Evidence suggests that cash transfers can be associated with a reduction in IPV due to impacts around decreased levels of poverty, household conflict and stress over resources. Nonetheless, it is important to consider prevalent gender norms and whether it would be best to give the transfer to women, men or the household to avoid backlash. 
• In more stable contexts, a longer-term economic strengthening approach may be appropriate, for example savings groups, microfinance, livelihood training, transfers of economic assets or livestock, or training women (and potentially other family members) in vocational and business development skills. The evidence on the impact of standalone economic strengthening interventions on IPV is mixed, with some interventions actually having increased violence against women – as well as, often, the burden on her time. It is highly recommended that these interventions are complemented by gender transformative programming that involves women and their male partners, and where appropriate other family members. 
• Cash transfers which target or reach adolescent girls can increase their educational attainment (which reduces risks of IPV), and reduce risks of engaging in transactional sex. This can also reduce household poverty, stress and in some cases, reduce caregivers' use of violent discipline.  
• In all contexts, it is key to ensure economic empowerment interventions are designed based on a market analysis of the livelihood options for women in that context and, where possible, build on existing support mechanisms available e.g. micro-loans, villages savings and loans associations, self-help groups. 

For more information on the evidence underlying different approaches, see Strategy E from the RESPECT framework, which highlights several interventions that support women’s empowerment.   

There can be multiple practical and socio-cultural barriers to women participating in the economy. Practical barriers can include women’s caregiving responsibilities and can be addressed through providing childcare during training sessions. There may also be practical issues over transportation availability, safety and costs which can be overcome through transportation stipends or providing trainers with bicycles or motorcycles to reach women in more remote areas. In some cases, for example for refugee or migrant women, a lack of identity papers can also be a barrier to participation. Safety and security issues also need considering in many contexts. Socio-cultural barriers to women’s participation are usually related to norms that limit women’s mobility, especially at certain times of the day, or to expectations around women’s caregiving and domestic duties. They may also comprise norms around men’s breadwinning role and whether or when it is appropriate for women to also earn an income and how. Addressing these barriers requires wider work at a community level with men, families and community leaders to reflect on and shift norms. See the page on addressing social norms to prevent VAWG. 

At the onset of programme design, it is important to understand the characteristics of various groups of women in a context (e.g. socioeconomic status, disability, age, education, ethnic or religious group, citizenship status, household type) as these can influence women’s ability to participate and the impact of the intervention on them, their households and the risk of violence. The best option is usually to undertake participatory research during programme design, talk to different groups of women about their situation and involve them in the design of interventions. Local civil society are also well placed to support on this. In some cases, implementers may consider framing activities as being for the wellbeing of the entire household as part of community sensitization. It is also important that monitoring and evaluation approaches collect intersectional data so any differential experiences of women participants can be understood and activities can be adapted as needed. 

In the area of cash transfers, targeting depends on a range of factors. Evidence suggests that women should be prioritised as named recipients, but they need community and household backing in order for positive impacts to be felt. Cash transfers are more likely to have an impact on IPV when they are targeted towards households that are less economically secure. In these circumstances, transfers will represent a larger increase in income, in comparison to transfers of the same value to less-poor households. By taking this approach, there is a higher probability of increasing economic security and reducing IPV. Evidence also shows that targeting households with children (particularly adolescent girls) can also activate intergenerational pathways of impact around reducing violence. Evidence from humanitarian settings suggests that cash transfers, when integrated into GBV case management, delivered by trained case workers, can provide an opportunity for referrals and uptake of services, as well as reduced feelings of depression among women. 

During economic empowerment interventions, it is critical to also collect data on any changes in women’s home life and family relationships, including her experience of violence. Otherwise, there is a risk that an economic empowerment intervention may be doing harm. For example, in some cases, women may still be expected to do all of the domestic duties and childcare, which means her engagement in an economic empowerment programme and income generation significantly increases her burden. Equally, she may experience backlash from her male partner or other family members who feel threatened by her increased autonomy. These risks need to be monitored and programmes need to ensure that services are available in case women need referral for support. Feedback mechanisms can play an important part here.

In most contexts, it will be important to involve men in some way in the economic empowerment programme. At the minimum, this might entail some sessions with male partners or family members to reflect on the benefits of women’s economic empowerment for the whole household and encourage men to support women and be allies in this training and empowerment process. However, evidence suggests that a more substantive gender transformative approach involving men and women as partners, parents or family members is often needed to ensure that the intervention supports more equitable gender roles and decision-making in the household and does not provoke backlash. It is important to consider involving men directly in the economic empowerment programme as participants, especially in contexts where there are high levels of un- and underemployment, and where men experience economic marginalization and stress. Involving men in economic empowerment interventions in such contexts can reduce their use of control and violence over women and children as well as mitigate potential backlash from women’s economic empowerment. 

Women’s economic positions are affected by a range of laws and policies, including labour, family, inheritance and property rights. For example, where laws do not permit women to hold property in their name, have an equal share of property after a divorce or inherit property, this renders them economically dependent on their male partner or other male family members. This creates a situation of inequality and makes it more difficult for women to negotiate relationships or leave an abusive relationship. There is promising evidence from low- and middle-income countries that reforming inheritance and property regimes is an important part of reducing overall levels of violence against women.  

Given that in many contexts, women tend to work in the informal sector, policies and laws that regulate informal markets, guarantee rights and offer protections can be especially important for women. Equally, laws on women’s mobility (e.g. their need to have a chaperone) or ability to work can have a significant impact on their economic position. Another important policy area is social protection where poorer households can get access to cash transfers and other forms of social welfare. It is important that these policies and systems are set up in ways that understand women’s realities and ensure that women benefit from social protection. Social protection policies should also explicitly recognise VAW survivors and ensure that they have specific access to economic support. 

Read more about how to work on legislative reform to end VAWG