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