|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study by Unnithan and Whitt was to examine the relationship between inequality, economic development and lethal violence, where the independent effects of homicide and suicide could be assessed separately.
METHODOLOGY:
A quasi-experimental design was employed, where secondary data on suicide, homicide, inequality, and economic development for 31 nations was utilized. The data on lethal violence represented average values for the years 1950-1970. The suicide and homicide data were collected from the World Health Organization for the same time span of 1950-1970. Highly developed Western nations were overrepresented in the sample; some eastern European and Third World societies were included.
The analysis consisted of four dependent variables and two independent variables. Suicide, homicide, the lethal violence rate, and the suicide murder rate were the dependent variables and inequality and economic development were the independent variables. The lethal violence rate was reported as the combined rate of suicide and homicide per 100,000 populations, and the suicide murder ratio was the proportion of that total expressed as suicide. The sources used for the data on inequality included Jain (1975), the Kuznets Index (1963) and Paukert (1973); the specifics were not included. Economic development was measured by gross national product per capita. The data for the years 1950-1970 were derived from Banks (1971) and the World Bank (1980). The mean GNP was used for the analysis and was converted into constant 1967 U.S dollars.
The data was analyzed using zero ordered correlations, tests for curvilinearity using bivariate regression analysis, and multiple regression which also tested for curvilinearity. The authors noted that although they reported significance tests, they should be interpreted with caution due the lack of a random sample.
They made three hypotheses: 1) that the relationship between inequality and the homicide rate would be curvilinear, 2) that inequality should both increase the lethal violence rate and lower the suicide murder rate, and 3) that development would increase the suicide murder rate. Causality from development to inequality to lethal violence was noted to be explored. No prediction was made for the relationship.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The findings from the zero ordered table confirmed some relationships as predicted. Inequality and economic development were both found to significantly affect the suicide murder rate in the predicted directions. Homicide was significantly correlated with inequality in a positive direction, and was only moderately correlated negatively with economic development; the significance was not indicated. Suicide was correlated negatively with inequality and positively but not significantly, with economic development.
In the bivariate analysis, curvilinear relationships were found as predicted. Inequality was curvilinearly related to homicide, the lethal violence rate, and the suicide murder rate. Economic development was curvilinearly related to only homicide and the suicide murder rate.
Multivariate analysis was conducted to be able to assess the independent effects of inequality and economic development as well as to test for curvilinearity using squared terms. Inequality was found to have a significant curvilinear effect on the homicide rate, and the lethal violence rate, when controlling for economic development and linearly related to the suicide murder rate and suicide. The shape of the curve between inequality and homicide and the lethal violence rate was J shaped with a negative slope at very low levels of inequality, and positive through out the rest of the range. Most of the nations in the sample were represented by the portion of the curve that was positive. Economic development was only found to have a significant curvilinear effect on the suicide murder rate when controlling for inequality; the shape of the relationship was an inverted U shape indicating that the values of the suicide murder rate increased up to a point, then decreased at very high levels of development. Inequality and economic development together explained 65% of the variance in homicide, 39% of the variance in suicide, 27% of the variance in the lethal violence rate, and 74% of variance in the suicide murder rate.
In sum, inequality was generally a stronger predictor than economic development of all four dependent variables. The authors made two conclusions. First, inequality both increases violence and directs it toward external targets, affecting homicide and suicide in two causal paths. Second, economic development channels violence against the self, but does not increase or decrease the total amount of individual violence.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Cross-National
KW - Violence Causes
KW - Sociocultural Factors
KW - Socioeconomic Factors
KW - Economic Development
KW - Suicide Causes
KW - Homicide Causes
KW - Countries Other Than USA
KW - Adult Violence
KW - Inequality
KW - 1950s
KW - 1960s
KW - 1970s
Language: en |