Experiences of Economic Abuse in the Community: Listening to Survivor Voices

Abstract

Economic abuse (EA) comprises tactics of intimate partner violence (IPV) which undermine survivors’ economic self-sufficiency and self-efficacy. Evidence is strong that survivors of IPV who have accessed formal services have experienced a wide range of EA tactics. However, there remains a gap in our understanding of EA experiences for survivors who have not sought IPV services. Thus, this article presents the findings of qualitative interviews with a group of women attending community college ( n = 20) who screened as having experienced intimate partner violence in their current or most recent relationship but who have never sought formal IPV services. Four themes emerged: (1) economic control, (2) economic exploitation, (3) economic manipulation, and (4) the economics of safety. The voices of these survivors highlight how EA is a critical issue for social workers in IPV service agencies, along with those who interact with IPV survivors in a range of other settings. Empowering social workers to identify the tactics and impacts of EA could lead interventions aimed at supporting survivors and begin undoing the economics of abuse.

The Prevalence of Economic Abuse Among Intimate Partners in Alberta

“…Cross-sectional studies of female IPV survivors propose women have fewer educational and employment opportunities, leading to lower income and greater financial instability, which, in turn, makes them vulnerable to economic abuse (Postmus et al, 2012; Weissman, 2020). Voth Schrag (2019) uses CCT to demonstrate how various abusive tactics enable an abusive male to control a female victim in such circumstances. The study found that micro-control of the victim led to a pattern of economically abusive behavior.…”

“…Several scholarly works have examined economic abuse among low-income women who are victims of IPV (Adams et al, 2020; Anitha, 2019; Christy & Valandra, 2017; Postmus et al, 2020; Postmus et al, 2012; Stylianou et al, 2013; Stylianou, 2018a; Voth Schrag, 2019). Adams et al (2008) developed the Scale of Economic Abuse to study the phenomenon among female victims of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.…”

“…Firstly, when perpetrated in relationships with other forms of IPV, economic abuse compounds the victim’s economic insecurity by restricting victim autonomy and financial stability, forcing the victim to remain in the abusive relationship (Postmus et al, 2020). Secondly, economic abuse, on its own , causes health problems such as gastrointestinal issues, depressive symptoms, psychological distress, and a higher risk of suicide (Postmus et al, 2012; Voth Schrag, 2019; Voth Schrag et al, 2019); reduced employment and housing opportunities (Littwin, 2012); and destroyed credit (Littwin, 2012). Compounding this with recognition that the majority of economically abusive behaviors are legal makes economic abuse a significant societal concern in its own right.…”

“…For example, studies describe economic abuse as a "patriarchal phenomenon" intended to "wage war on women's growing equality" (Littwin, 2012, p. 981); as a tool of "abusive men to exert coercive control over/limit the options of women that they are/or have previously been in a relationship with" (Sharp-Jeffs, 2015, p. 4); or as encompassing behaviors that control "a woman's ability to acquire, use and maintain financial resources" (Anitha, 2019(Anitha, , p. 1855. In this context, leading attempts to explain economic abuse use Coercive Control Theory ("CCT") to focus on female victimization in heterosexual relationships and the proposition that societal norms encourage males to control their partners (Voth Schrag, 2019).…”

The Forgotten Survivor: The Articulated Needs of Survivors of Psychological and Economic Abuse Who Stay

“…My aim in this study is to address two primary gaps in extant knowledge regarding intimate partner violence (IPV): first, that scholars have thus far focused more extensively on physical violence rather than psychological, emotional, and economic abuse; and second, that strategies provided by practitioners and helpline workers tend to be focused on help for those who leave, rather than directed toward those who choose to stay in the relationship (Stylianou 2018;Voth Schrag 2019). Contemporary research reveals a disparity in terms of how victims who make the decision to remain in a relationship with their abuser are treated.…”