Poverty Reduction and Social Protection
as Sustainable Development Goals for Violence Prevention
William Alex Pridemore
Dean and Professor – School of Criminal Justice
University at Albany – State University of New York
7th Milestones of a Global Campaign
for Violence Prevention
Geneva – September 2015
INTRODUCTION
Transforming our World: The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development
United Nations September 25-27
Violence Prevention
• Violence prevention is necessary – Victims. Families. Communities. Nations. Treasury.
International relations.
• Violence prevention is possible – From individual physiology to national traits…
• Violence prevention is intimately connected to nearly all 17 Sustainable Development Goals – Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-
being.
– Goal 11: Make human settlements safe.
– Goal 16: Promote peaceful societies.
– Introduction: “We envisage a world free of fear and violence.”
Focus of Presentation
• The influence of poverty and social protection on
cross-national homicide rates
– In the Sustainable Development Goal framework
• Poverty
– SDG 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
• Social protection
– SD Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social
protection systems.
– SD Target 10.2: Promote economic inclusion of all.
– SD Target 10.3: Adopt social protection policies.
Poverty and Homicide
The Evidence
• Studies of individual nations
–United States
The Evidence “…poverty appears to be an important component of the correlated causes that consistently accompany high aggregate levels of homicide.”
- Messner & Rosenfeld, 1999 literature review, p. 28.
“[a]lmost without exception, studies of violence find a positive and usually large correlation between some measure of area poverty and violence – especially homicide.”
- Sampson & Lauritsen, 1994 literature review, p. 63.
“…the effect of poverty was one of the five macro-level predictors to receive scores of high for both strength and stability of effects.”
- Pratt & Cullen, 2005 meta-analysis, p. 412.
“…the positive relationship between poverty and homicide is the most consistent finding in the literature.”
- Pridemore, 2002 literature review, p. 144.
The Evidence
• Cross-national studies – Pridemore, W.A. (2008). A methodological addition to the
cross-national empirical literature on social structure and homicide: A first test of the poverty-homicide thesis. Criminology, 46, 133-154.
– Pridemore, W.A. (2011). Poverty matters: A reassessment of the inequality-homicide relationship in cross-national studies. British Journal of Criminology, 51, 739-772.
– Paré, P.-P., & Felson, R.B. (2014). Income inequality, poverty, and crime across nations. British Journal of Sociology, 65, 434-458.
– Rogers, M.L., & Pridemore, W.A. (2013). The effect of poverty and social protection on national homicide rates: Direct and moderating effects. Social Science Research, 42, 584-595.
Ho
mic
ide
Rat
e
Economic Inequality
SDG #1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Social Protection and Homicide
The Evidence: Direct Effects
• Decommodification – Messner, S.F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2006). Crime and
the American Dream. Wadsworth.
– Savolainen, J. (2000). Inequality, welfare state, and homicide: further support for the institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 38, 1021-1042.
The Evidence: Direct Effects
• Health and educational spending as % of GDP
– Pratt, T.C., Godsey, T.W. (2002). Social support & homicide: a cross-national test of an emerging criminological theory. Journal of Criminal Justice 30, 589-601.
• Welfare spending
– Gartner, R., Baker, K., Pampel, F.C. (1990). Gender stratification and the gender gap in homicide victimization. Social Problems, 37, 593-612.
– Savage, J., Bennett, R.R., Danner, M. (2008). Economic assistance and crime: a cross-national investigation. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 217–238.
The Evidence: Direct Effects
• Controlling for poverty
– Pridemore, W.A. (2011). Poverty matters: A reassessment of the inequality-homicide relationship in cross-national studies. British Journal of Criminology, 51, 739-772.
– Paré, P.-P., & Felson, R. B. (2014). Income inequality, poverty, and crime across nations. British Journal of Sociology, 65, 434-458.
The Evidence: Moderating Effects
• Greater social protection weakens the impact of poverty on cross-national homicide rates – Rogers, M.L., & Pridemore, W.A. (2013). The effect of
poverty and social protection on national homicide rates: Direct and moderating effects. Social Science Research, 42, 584-595.
– Rogers, M.L. (2015). Why does social protection reduce homicide victimization rates across nations? Dissertation.
Poverty
Ho
mic
ide
Rat
e
Types of Social Protection
• What types of social protection policies associated with lower homicide rates? – Public (i.e., government-sponsored) not private
(e.g., social altruism, voluntary donations, etc.).
– Holistic: Tangible and broad protections that meaningfully support individuals and social institutions (e.g., the family).
• “Human poverty” not just economic poverty.
• Human dignity (Durkheim: religion of humanity).
Conclusion
Violence Prevention via SDGs
• Violence prevention is necessary
• National homicide rates vary
• Variation partially explained by structural and cultural characteristics
• Key covariates: Poverty. Social protection.
• Poverty and social protection can be addressed by policy
• ∴ governments can reduce violence by decreasing poverty and increasing social protection
Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development
United Nations September 25-27
Poverty Reduction and Social Protection
as Sustainable Development Goals for Violence Prevention
William Alex Pridemore
Dean and Professor – School of Criminal Justice
University at Albany – State University of New York
7th Milestones of a Global Campaign
for Violence Prevention
Geneva – September 2015
