Basic Income and Violence Against Women: A Review of Cash Transfer Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Violence against women is understood as a public health issue that has long-term health consequences for women. Economic inequality and women’s economic dependence on men make women vulnerable to violence. One approach to addressing poverty is through basic income, a cash transfer for all individuals which is not dependent on their employment status. This paper examines the relationship between basic income and violence against women by surveying different forms of cash transfer programs and their association with intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, and systemic violence. Previous reviews report that cash transfers can be associated with decreased intimate partner violence. This review goes beyond existing systematic reviews by including intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, and systemic violence for a broader understanding of how cash transfers relate to violence against women. Search databases include EBSCOhost search with Medline, Social Science Abstracts, APA PsychINFO, Social Work Abstracts. Search terms were “basic income” or “cash transfer” and “women” and “violence” or “homicide” or “sexual risk.” Other terms searched were “indigenous” or “colonial” or “systemic”. This search included articles reporting on cash transfers as the exposure and an indicator of violence against women as the outcome. Articles were excluded if it did not fit these criteria and were not written in English. This search yielded 28 articles that described intimate partner violence (emotional, physical, or sexual), 15 articles that described sexual exploitation, and no articles describing systemic violence against women. We used other supplemental articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria to pinpoint gaps in literature on systemic violence. These papers were analyzed through a feminist lens, an intersectional approach in addition to other theories. This search resulted in 43 articles. Consistent with other reviews on this subject matter, many recipients of cash transfers reported feeling empowered by it. A large proportion of articles found that cash transfers have a decreased association with physical forms of IPV overall, however some articles report decreased, increased, or unchanged outcomes for emotional IPV, such as aggression, controlling behaviours, or threats. Cash transfers may also be associated with reduced sexual exploitation as nine out of 11 studies reported that participants reduced their number of sex trade interactions due to having their financial needs met and studies also reported their perceived increased autonomy in sexual decision-making. This article outlines the gaps in literature, including the examination of cash transfers and systemic violence that can guide future research to best understand how cash transfer impact violence against women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".