Gender inequality is a central concept in cross-national feminist criminological literature. There is not a readily agreed-upon operationalization of gender inequality. The variation in the operationalization of gender inequality in cross-national research could be the cause for the inconsistent findings. We explored if the operationalization of gender inequality affects the association of the variables with gender-specific homicide across nations. Utilizing SUR and Wald Tests, our results indicate that measurement matters. When a measure of gender inequality includes an income competent, it has an association with gender-specific homicide. We conclude by situating our findings into the larger cross-national literature.
AghaS. (2009). Structural correlates of female homicide: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 576–585.
2.
AlesinaA.DevleeschauwerA.EasterlyW.KurlatS.WacziargR. (2004). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(2), 155–194.
3.
AvakameE. F. (1999). Females’ labor force participation and intimate femicide: An empirical assessment of the backlash hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 14(3), 277–291.
4.
BaileyW. C. (1999). The socioeconomic status of women and patterns of forcible rape for major U.S. cities. Sociological Focus, 32(1), 43–63.
5.
BaronL.StrausM. A. (1989). Four theories of rape in American society: A state-level analysis. Yale University Press.
6.
BrewerV. E.SmithM. D. (1995). Gender inequality and rates of female homicide victimization across U.S. cities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(2), 175–190.
7.
ChonD. S. (2013). Test of impacts of gender equality and economic development on sexual violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(6), 603–610.
8.
ChonD. S. (2016). A spurious relationship of gender equality with female homicide victimization: A cross-national analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 62(3), 397–419.
9.
CutrightP.BriggsC. M. (1995). Structural and cultural determinants of adult homicide in developed countries: Age and gender-specific rates, 1955–1989. Sociological Focus, 28(3), 221–243.
10.
DaviesK. A. (1996). Women as victims and perpetrators of homicide: a test of three theories of women’s criminality (Doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University.
11.
DeWeesM. A.ParkerK. F. (2003). The political economy of urban homicide: Assessing the relative impact of gender inequality on sex-specific victimization. Violence and Victims, 18(1), 35–54.
12.
DuganL.NaginD. S.RosenfeldR. (1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partner homicide the effects of changing domesticity, women’s status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies, 3(3), 187–214.
13.
DuganL.NaginD. S.RosenfeldR. (2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law & Society Review, 37(1), 169–198.
14.
EllisL.BeattieC. (1983). The feminist explanation for rape: An empirical test. Journal of Sex Research, 19(1), 74–93.
15.
GartnerR. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55(1), 92–106.
16.
GartnerR.BakerK.PampelF. C. (1990). Gender stratification and the gender gap in homicide victimization. Social Problems, 37(4), 593–612.
17.
Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. (2016). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor—Adult Population Survey measures, 2015. Retrieved January 27, 2017, from http://www.gemconsortium.org/data/key-indicators
18.
HaynieD. L.ArmstrongD. P. (2006). Race and gender-disaggregated homicide offending rates differences and similarities by victim-offender relations across cities. Homicide Studies, 10(1), 3–32.
19.
HeirigsM. H.MooreM. D. (2018). Gender inequality and homicide: A cross-national examination. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 42(4), 273–285.
20.
HunnicuttG. (2009). Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: Resurrecting “patriarchy” as a theoretical tool. Violence Against Women, 15(5), 553–573.
KanisS.MessnerS. F.EisnerM. P.HeitmeyerW. (2017). A cautionary note about the use of estimated homicide data for cross-national research. Homicide Studies, 21(4), 312–324.
24.
MartinK.VieraitisL. M.BrittoS. (2006). Gender equality and women’s absolute status. A test of the feminist models of rape. Violence Against Women, 12(4), 321–339.
25.
MesserschmidtJ. W. (1986). Capitalism, patriarchy, and crime: Towards a socialist feminist criminology. Bowman and Littlefield.
26.
MesserschmidtJ. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Bowman & Littlefield.
27.
MessnerS. F.RaffalovichL. E.SuttonG. M. (2010). Poverty, infant mortality, and homicide rates in cross-national perspective: Assessments of criterion and construction validity. Criminology, 48(2), 509–537.
28.
MessnerS. F.RosenfeldR. (1997). Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross-national application of institutional-anomie theory. Social Forces, 75(4), 1393–1416.
29.
MyersR. H. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Duxbury Press.
30.
NeumayerE. (2003). Good policy can lower violent crime: Evidence from a cross-national panel of homicide rates, 1980–97. Journal of Peace Research, 40(6), 619–640.
31.
NivetteA. E. (2011). Cross-national predictors of crime: A meta-analysis. Homicide Studies, 15(2), 103–131.
32.
OuimetM.LangladeA.ChabotC. (2018). The dynamic theory of homicide: Adverse social conditions and formal social control as factors explaining the variation of the homicide rate in 145 countries. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 60(2), 241–265.
33.
PinkerS. (2011). The better angels of our nature: The decline of violence in history and its causes. Penguin Books.
34.
PridemoreW. 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(1), 133–154.
35.
PridemoreW. A. (2011). Poverty matters: A reassessment of the inequality–homicide relationship in cross-national studies. British Journal of Criminology, 51(5), 739–772.
36.
RogersM. L.PridemoreW. A. (2016). The (null) effects of percent young on 15 to 24 age-specific and male- and female-specific cross-national homicide rates. Homicide Studies, 20(3), 257–292.
37.
RogersM. L.PridemoreW. A. (2017). A comprehensive evaluation of the association between percent young and cross-national homicide rates. British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), 1080–1100.
38.
RogersM. L.PridemoreW. A. (2018). Cross-national research on violent victimization. In VazonyiA.FlanneryD.DeLisiM. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression. Cambridge University Press.
39.
RussellD. (1975). The politics of rape: The victim’s perspective. Stein & Day.
40.
SavolainenJ. (2000). Inequality, welfare state, homicide: Further support for the institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 38(4), 1021–1042.
41.
SmitP. R.de JongR. R.BijleveldC. (2012). Homicide data in Europe: Definitions, sources, and statistics. In LiemM. C. A.PridemoreW. A. (Eds.), Handbook of European homicide research: Patterns, explanations, and country studies (pp. 5–23). Springer.
42.
StamatelJ. P. (2014). Explaining variations in female homicide victimization rates across Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 11(5), 578–600.
43.
StamatelJ. P. (2016). The effects of detrimental drinking patterns and drug use on female homicide victimization rates across Europe. Current Sociology, 64(7), 1090–1107.
44.
StamatelJ. P. (2018). Money matters: Dissecting the relationship between gender equality and female homicide victimization rates in the European Union. Feminist Criminology, 13(5), 435–455.
45.
TitteringtonV.B. (2006). A retrospective investigation of gender inequality and female homicide victimization. Sociological Spectrum, 26(2), 205–236.
46.
TrentC. L. S.PridemoreW. A. (2011). A review of the cross-national empirical literature on social structure and homicide. In LiemM. C. A.PridemoreW. A. (Eds.), Handbook of European homicide research: Patterns, explanations, and country studies. Springer.
VieraitisL. M.BrittoS.KovandzicT. V. (2007). The impact of women’s status and gender inequality on female homicide victimization rates evidence from U.S. counties. Feminist Criminology, 2(1), 57–73.
49.
VieraitisL. M.KovandzicT. V.BrittoS. (2008). Women’s status and risk of homicide victimization an analysis with data disaggregated by victim-offender relationship. Homicide Studies, 12(2), 163–176.
50.
VieraitisL. M.WilliamsM. R. (2002). Assessing the impact of gender inequality on female homicide victimization across U.S. cities a racially disaggregated analysis. Violence Against Women, 8(1), 35–63.
51.
WhaleyR. B. (2001). The paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape: Toward a refined theory. Gender and Society, 15(4), 531–555.
52.
WhaleyR. B.MessnerS. F. (2002). Gender equality and gendered homicides. Homicide Studies, 6(3), 188–210.
53.
WhaleyR. B.MessnerS. F.VeyseyB. M. (2013). The relationship between gender equality and rates of inter-and intra-sexual lethal violence: An exploration of functional form. Justice Quarterly, 30(4), 732–754.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
