DEMOGRAPHIC

AND

HEALTH

SURVEYS

DHS WORKING PAPERS

2013 No. 99

Madeleine Wayack Pambè 

Bilampoa Gnoumou 

Idrissa Kaboré 

August 2013

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for

International Development.

Relationship between Women’s Socioeconomic 

Status and Empowerment in Burkina Faso: 

A Focus on Participation in Decision-Making and 

Experience of Domestic Violence 

Relationship between Women’s Socioeconomic Status and Empowerment in Burkina Faso: 

A Focus on Participation in Decision-Making and Experience of Domestic Violence 

Madeleine Wayack Pambè 1

Bilampoa Gnoumou 1

Idrissa Kaboré 1

ICF International 

Calverton, Maryland, USA 

August 2013 

1

 Institut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population, Université de Ouagadougou 

Corresponding author: Madeleine Wayack Pambè, Institut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP), 

Université de Ouagadougou; Email: mwayack@issp.bf or wayack_madeleine@yahoo.fr
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Funding from the United States Agency for International development (USAID) along 

with the technical assistance of ICF International through the DHS fellow program is gratefully 

acknowledged. Particular thanks are directed to Kerry MacQuarrie, Sarah Staveteig and Wenjuan 

Wang for their precious time, commitment and valuable contributions to help produce a quality 

work. We would also like to thank Rebecca Winter who has reviewed the paper throughout the 

whole process for insightful comments. We are grateful to our institution, Institut Supérieur des 

Sciences de la Population (ISSP) of the University of Ouagadougou, without which support this 

paper would not have proceeded. Ambrose Akinlo and fellows of the 2013 DHS fellow program 

have provided valuables remarks and comments which have helped to improve the paper. 
ABSTRACT 

Background and Objective: Since 2009, the Burkina Faso government has launched a 

national policy to empower women and to better integrate gender equity in policies, actions, and 

programs. Research findings on women’s empowerment to support this policy are scarce, 

however. This paper therefore explores how socioeconomic differences shape two aspects of 

women’s empowerment in the cultural and social context of Burkina Faso, namely decisionmaking in the household and experience of domestic violence. Reducing levels of domestic 

violence and improving women’s participation are important to empowering women.

Methods: Women’s participation in decision-making was assessed through three 

measures: involvement in decisions on woman’s own health care, involvement in decisions on 

major household purchases, and involvement in decisions on visits to family or relatives. Using 

binary logistic regression, we assessed how women’s socioeconomic characteristics shape each 

of the three outcome variables of decision-making, and each of four outcome variables of 

domestic violence—physical, emotional, and sexual violence, and psychological pressure. The 

study analyzed data for 9,141 cohabiting or married women who successfully completed the 

interview on domestic violence from the 2010 Burkina Faso Demographic and Health Survey 

(DHS).

Results: Findings show low levels of decision-making even among educated women and 

women working for cash, but also very low prevalence of domestic violence. Participation in all 

the three aspects of decision-making is positively associated with working for cash. The more 

education women have, the greater their involvement is in decision-making for their own health 

care and for family visiting. Household wealth status has a much weaker association with 

involvement in decision-making. Women’s experience of physical, emotional, and sexual 

violence by their husbands/partners generally is weakly related to socioeconomic characteristics. 

Only the richest women and to a lesser extent women with formal education are significantly 

more likely to experience psychological pressure. 
Conclusions: The study sheds light on the importance of socio-cultural systems for 

empowering women. In a society marked by a broad acceptance of traditional gender roles, 

neither education nor financial autonomy is sufficient to assert women’s empowerment. The 

subtlety of the relationship between women’s empowerment and domestic violence is also 

shown, but the near absence of this phenomenon raises methodological and societal questions. 

Additional studies are needed to better identify the factors that may be specific to the 

improvement of women’s status in Burkina Faso. 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

Since the late 1980s, the reduction of gender disparities has been of great concern for 

development policies, as highlighted in the third Millennium Development Goal, whose purpose 

is to promote gender equality and empower women. With this objective in mind, in 2009 the 

Burkina Faso government launched a national policy that aims at empowering women and better 

integrates gender equity in policies, actions, and programs. However, this policy lacks empirical 

evidence on women’s empowerment, given the scarcity of research on this subject in Burkina 

Faso. This reflects the generally small contribution of the sub-Saharan Africa region in the 

thinking about empowerment in developing countries, as the increasing amount of research 

evidence on this issue has come from studies carried out in Asia and Latin America. 

Research on women’s empowerment supports the view that it is a multidimensional, 

complex and context-specific issue (Charmes and Wieringa 2003; Kabeer 2005; Malhotra and 

Mather 1997). Therefore, what is valid in one region may not be valid for other regions, while 

socio-cultural systems vary considerably from one setting to another, and even within the same 

country. 

It is necessary to study women’s empowerment from the perspective of women’s 

socioeconomic characteristics, as women are divided by heterogeneous categories based on 

class, life cycle, or ethnicity. Scholars also point out the need to consider the intersectionalities of 

women's empowerment—that is, how social, economic, cultural, and other categories related to 

gender relations interact with each other in such a way that they create inequalities among 

women (Calvès 2009; Charmes and Wieringa 2003). This is an important issue to tackle if the 

policies that promote gender equity are not to benefit only privileged groups of women, while 

leaving disadvantaged groups voiceless (Calvès 2009). 

This paper thus raises the question as to how socioeconomic inequalities shape two 

aspects of women’s empowerment in the cultural and social context of Burkina Faso, namely 

decision-making in the household and experience of domestic violence. Reducing violence 

against women as well as enhancing their capacity to decide for themselves is important in 

empowering women. We aim to advance the understanding of women’s empowerment in 

Burkina Faso to contribute to the Burkina Faso government’s efforts to mainstream the gender 

dimension into the country’s development policies and programs. 
2 

To accomplish our research objective, we use data from the 2010 Burkina Faso 

Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), a nationally representative survey, which includes 

specific questions in the women’s questionnaire related to empowerment. 

Background 

Burkina Faso, located in the West African region, is listed among the poorest countries in 

the world, and the development policy of the government is focused on finding a way out of this 

situation. This objective is impeded by serious handicaps, such as high fertility and infant 

mortality rates, as well as a very low amount of human capital, especially among girls and 

women. A large portion of Burkina Faso’s population is under age 15 (46%) and lives in rural 

areas (74%). In 2009 the gross enrolment ratio in tertiary education was 5% for men and 2% for 

women. Similarly the literacy rate for the population age 15 and older was higher for men (37%) 

than for women (22%) (UNESCO 2010; UNESCO 2011). The Burkina Faso government has to 

tackle these issues from a gender equity and women’s empowerment perspective. 

Available studies in different settings on the relationship between socioeconomic factors 

and women’s status show mixed results, and a number of them report reasons to expect 

variations in the effects of women’s socioeconomic characteristics on different aspects of their 

life. For example, while some studies indicate that poverty is a strong predictor of domestic 

violence, others show that it is an insignificant factor (Kishor and Johnson 2006). Literature 

usually reports higher socioeconomic status, namely women’s increasing education and 

participation in wage work, to be positively related with women’s greater say on decisionmaking in the household. In Ghana, wealthier women were found to be more likely than poorer 

women to be involved in decision-making on their own health care, while employed and 

educated women were more likely to have a say in all aspects of the decision-making in their 

household, relative to unemployed women and women with no formal education (Boateng et al. 

2012). Work and formal education were also positively associated with increased women’s 

household decision-making in Nigeria (Kritz and Makinwa-Adebusoye 1999). In Nepal, women 

who worked for cash were more likely to participate in all aspects of decision-making than those 

who were not employed or did not work for cash. Similarly, highly educated women and those 

living in the richest households were more likely to state their views on all aspects of decision-
3 

making (Acharya & al. 2010). Still, Furuta and Salway (2006) reported that in Nepal educated 

women were more able to use subtle means to impose their ideas and that at the same time they 

were in more communicative marital relationships, which increased their influence in the 

household. 

As for domestic violence, some studies show that this phenomenon varies considerably 

according to social strata. In Bangladesh, urban women in the highest wealth quintiles were 

found to be less likely than those in the poorest quintiles to have experienced physical violence 

during pregnancy (Naved and Persson 2008). Similarly, higher levels of husband’s education as 

well as women’s primary and higher education were found to be significantly protective against 

domestic violence (Koenig et al. 2003). 

While both education and employment might enable women to stand up against 

discriminatory role definitions and violate established gender norms, in doing so, women would 

challenge traditional male authority and control, thereby setting the stage for greater marital 

tension and conflict, which in turn could lead to domestic violence (Kaye et al. 2005). Numerous 

studies suggest that sources of women’s empowerment could also be compounding factors for 

risk of spousal violence. Findings in Turkey bring to light the complexity and ambiguity of the 

empowering effects of wealth, education, and employment for women. Compared with women 

with no formal education, university graduates were found to be less likely to experience 

violence inside the family. At the same time, women who worked for pay and women who had 

personal earnings faced higher risk of marital violence than women who did not work. Family 

income was also positively associated with partner’s violence, so that the incidence of domestic 

violence was much greater in wealthier households than in poorer ones (Kocacik et al. 2007). 

In Ghana, in contrast to the findings of the quantitative study by Boateng and colleagues 

(2012) cited above, an earlier qualitative study among wealthy, well educated, and employed 

Ghanaian women found that neither education nor paid employment prevented women from 

experiencing domestic violence (Amoakohene 2004). Similarly, a study in South Africa found 

that none of the standard social and demographic indicators (i.e. age, race, urban residence, 

education, employment, socioeconomic status) were independently associated with domestic 

violence (Jewkes et al. 2002). 
4 

These separate and inconsistent effects of socioeconomic factors on different aspects of 

women’s empowerment demonstrate the need to look closely at the mechanisms through which 

socioeconomic inequalities affect both decision-making and domestic violence in the household. 

The present study seeks to understand how socioeconomic inequality is part of the explanation 

for women’s empowerment or disadvantage in households in Burkina Faso. Women's 

empowerment can be understood at different levels, individual and social, in different 

dimensions, and within the intimate family setting or in the public domain (Charmes and 

Wieringa 2003; Cueva Beteta 2006). We focus on women’s empowerment at the individual and 

household levels, as they are important levels in which empowerment occurs, and central tp the 

determination of women’s disempowerment (Cueva Beteta 2006; Malhotra 2003) 

Theoretical Framework 

Both scholars and policymakers acknowledge women’s empowerment as a key factor to 

reach sustainable development. Women's empowerment focuses on individual and collective 

aspects of power, yet it remains a fuzzy concept, and there is still considerable debate about its 

meaning and measurement (Calvès 2009; Kabeer 2005; Malhotra 2003). The concept of 

women’s empowerment is defined and measured in numerous ways. One definition is that of 

Kabeer (1999, 2005), who depicts women’s empowerment as “the processes by which those who 

have been denied the ability to make choices acquire such ability.” 

Many authors conceptualize empowerment less as an outcome and more as a process, i.e.

a progress from the state of gender inequality to the state of gender equality. As such, 

empowerment is composed of elements that enable or limit it (Cueva Beteta 2006; Kabeer 1999, 

2005; Kishor 2000). According to Kishor (2000), indicators of women’s empowerment as 

agency or end-result, i.e. evidence, should directly measure women’s control over their lives or 

environment, while indicators of process should document the existence or absence of an 

appropriate setting for empowerment and women’s access to different sources of empowerment. 

The theoretical framework of this study is based on Kishor’s proposed operationalization 

of women’s empowerment. It views participation in household decision-making as evidence of 

empowerment, and domestic violence as an indicator of the setting for empowerment. 
5 

Specifically, knowing whether a woman has or has not experienced intimate partner violence 

should tell us something about the ability of her household to promote her empowerment 

(Kishor, 2000). Knowing whether or not she has a say in decision-making tells us something 

about the extent to which she is already empowered within the household. 

Hypotheses 

We expect to find that the three socioeconomic indicators examined—women’s 

education, participation in paid work, and household wealth quintiles—are each associated with 

decision-making and domestic violence outcomes. We expect women’s level of education to be 

positively associated with their participation in household decision-making, and inversely 

associated with their experience of domestic violence in 12 months preceding the survey. In line 

with literature on the subject, we anticipate that education, but only at high levels, gives women 

new perspectives on what their lives should be, thus bringing them to participate more actively 

and independently in decision-making. Highly educated women are also more likely to be in 

more egalitarian relationships, and thus, have more say in the couple’s decision-making; hence 

they are less likely to experience domestic violence. 

We also expect that women employed for cash will have more say in household 

decisions, as they can contribute to the household’s expenses. However, since compliance with 

existing traditional gender norms is a widely shared attitude among Burkinabe women, 

financially autonomous women are unlikely to attempt to challenge their husband’s authority, 

and by behaving in accordance with the traditional norms, they are less likely to experience 

domestic violence. 

We hypothesize that due to lack of resources and of potential sources of empowerment, 

women in poor households would be more likely than richer women to experience domestic 

violence and less likely to have a say in household decisions. 

 
6 

DATA AND METHODS 

Data 

Data for the analysis are drawn from the 2010 Burkina Faso Demographic and Health 

Survey (BFDHS). The 2010 BFDHS is a national-level population and health survey conducted 

by the Statistical Service of Burkina Faso (INSD), in close collaboration with other stakeholders 

in various sectors of government, and international partners (USAID, ICF, UNFPA, UNICEF). 

The 2010 BFDHS sample is representative of urban and rural areas in the 13 regions in the 

country. 

The sample was drawn in two stages. The first stage involved selecting clusters from an 

updated master sampling frame constructed from the 2006 Burkina Faso Population and Housing 

Census. A total of 574 clusters were selected (176 in urban and 398 in rural areas). The clusters 

were selected using systematic sampling with probability proportional to size. A complete 

household listing operation was conducted in all the selected clusters to provide a sampling 

frame for the second-stage selection of households. The households were selected using a 

systematic sampling with equal probability. Only one selected cluster was not interviewed, in the 

Sahel region. 

The survey identified 17,363 women age 15–49 from 14,424 households, of which 

17,087 women were interviewed, for a response rate of 98% (INSD, 2012). The BFDHS 

provides information on participation in decision-making and domestic violence, among other 

things, in Burkina Faso. Our research focuses on women who were currently married or living 

with a partner and who successfully completed the interview on domestic violence, yielding a 

sample size of 9,141. Not all DHS surveys include the domestic violence module. In Burkina 

Faso only one woman per household was selected for this module, which focuses on specific 

aspects of domestic and interpersonal violence—women’s experience of physical, sexual, and 

emotional violence perpetrated by their husbands/partners. 
7 

Key Variables 

The two outcome variables analyzed in this study are women’s participation in decisionmaking and women’s report of their experience of domestic violence. Women’s participation in 

decision-making was assessed through three measures: involvement in decision-making on 

woman’s own health care, involvement in decision-making on major household purchases, and 

involvement in decision-making on visits to family or relatives. For each of these three 

dimensions of decision-making, the DHS questionnaire asked married women who usually 

makes the decisions—about health care for yourself; major household purchases; visits to your 

family or relatives. Each question had five response options: respondent alone, respondent and 

husband/partner, husband/partner alone; someone else; and others. We created a binary variable 

for each type of decision-making by grouping together the first two responses in which women 

participate in decision-making, coded as 1, and other responses together in which she has no say 

in decision-making, coded as 0. 

In the DHS domestic violence module, women were asked a series of questions about 

their experience of physical, emotional and sexual violence: 

Physical violence 

• Ever been pushed, shook or had something thrown by husband/partner 

• Ever been slapped by husband/partner 

• Ever been punched with fist or hit by something harmful by husband/partner 

• Ever been kicked or dragged by husband/partner 

• Ever been strangled or burnt by husband/partner 

• Ever been threatened with knife/gun or other weapon by husband/partner 

Emotional violence 

• Ever been humiliated by husband/partner 

• Ever been threatened with harm by husband/partner 

Sexual violence 

• Ever been physically forced into unwanted sex by husband/partner 

• Ever been forced into other unwanted sexual acts by husband/partner 
8 

Each question has four responses for married women: never, often, sometimes, yes but 

not in the last 12 months. In this study, we considered experience of domestic violence within the 

last 12 months. Women reporting that they experienced violence “often” or “sometimes” were 

categorized as having experienced domestic violence in the last 12 months and coded as 1, and 

other responses were categorized as no experience of domestic violence in the last 12 months 

and coded as 0. 

Another variable – psychological pressure – was also computed based on women’s 

responses to a series of questions included in the domestic violence module: 

• Husband/partner jealous if respondent talks with other men 

• Husband/partner accuses respondent of unfaithfulness 

• Husband/partner does not permit respondent to meet female friends 

• Husband/partner tries to limit respondent's contact with family 

• Husband/partner insists on knowing where respondent is 

• Husband/partner does not trust respondent with money 

• Husband prevents her from working. 

If a woman responded “yes” to any of these seven questions, she was considered to face 

psychological pressure from her husband/partner. 

The key independent variables used in the study to illustrate social inequalities among 

women are education, participation in paid work, and household wealth status. Women’s 

education is code into three categories: not educated, primary level, secondary level or more. 

Given the low numbers, the secondary and higher level women are grouped. Paid work includes 

three categories: not working, not paid, cash paid. 

Wealth status is categorized in quintiles: poorest, poor, middle, richer, richest. The wealth 

quintiles index is constructed with principal component analysis using information on household 

ownership of consumer items, such as a television, a radio, or a car, as well as dwelling 

characteristics, such as the availability of electricity, source of drinking water, sanitation 

facilities, type of flooring material, number of persons per sleeping room, and type of fuel used 

for cooking. The wealth quintiles provide a consistent measure of combined indicators of 

household income and expenditures. 
9 

Statistical Analysis 

We used chi-squared tests to assess the statistical significance of the differences among 

women and binary logistic regression for the multivariate analysis. Logistic regression was 

conducted using STATA. A binary logistic regression model is used when the dependent 

variable is dichotomous such as participation in decision-making and experience domestic 

violence (Fox 1999). This method is used to predict membership of nominal and usually 

dichotomous dependent variable from a set of any initial number of predictors. Logistic 

regression provides odds ratios, which represent the ratio of two probabilities: the probability 

that the event occur (P) and the probability that it does not occur (1-P). The odds ratio is 

interpreted in terms of deviation from a reference category.

For women’s participation in decision-making, we ran three separate models, one for 

each of the three variables. For the four domestic violence outcomes – physical violence, sexual 

violence, emotional violence, and psychological pressure, separate logistic regression models 

were fitted to examine their association with women’s socioeconomic characteristics. A number 

of socio-demographic and cultural variables were controlled for in the regressions, including 

women’s age, spousal age difference, religion, ethnicity and area of residence.
10 

RESULTS OF DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 

Women’s Participation in Decision-Making 

Table 1 presents the distributions of women by demographic and socioeconomic 

characteristics. The analysis focuses on the sample of 9,141 women who were currently married 

or living with a partner at the time of interview in the 2010 BFDHS and who successfully 

completed the module on domestic violence. 

The great majority of women (82%) are uneducated, while 11% have primary education 

and 7% have secondary and more level of education. Thirty-eight percent of women are paid 

cash for work, while 44% are not paid, and 18% do not work. According to household wealth 

status, 39% of women are in the poorest or poorer quintiles, and 40% in the richer or richest 

quintiles. By age group, 27% of women are under age 25, 20% are age 25-29, 18% are age 30-

34, and 35% are age 35 or older. Over three-fourths of women (79%) live in rural areas. Table 1 

also presents the ethnic and religious diversity of the population of Burkina Faso. 

Table 1. Percent distribution of currently married/cohabitating women who completed the 

domestic violence module, by measures of socioeconomic status and background 

characteristics, Burkina Faso 2010

Characteristics Percent Weighted number of women 

Socioeconomic status

Education 

No education 82.3 7,525 

Primary 10.7 979 

Secondary and more 7.0 638 

Paid work 

Not work 18.0 1,645 

Not paid 43.8 4,002 

Cash paid 38.2 3,494 

Wealth quintiles 

Poorest 18.9 1,725 

Poorer 20.3 1,857 

Middle 20.6 1,880 

Richer 20.8 1,903 

Richest 19.4 1,776 

(Continued...)
11 

Table 1. – Continued

Characteristics Percent Weighted number of women 

Background characteristics 

Age 

15-19 7.7 705 

20-24 19.4 1,772 

25-29 20.2 1,842 

30-34 18.1 1,652 

35-39 14.4 1,319 

40-44 11.5 1,056 

45-49 8.7 796 

Husband-wife age difference 

Less than 5 years 20.9 1,907 

5-9 years 33.1 3,030 

10-14 years 20.6 1,886 

15 years and more 24.8 2,265 

Undetermined .6 53 

Religion 

No religion 1.0 93 

Muslim 63.6 5,816 

Catholic 21.3 1,945 

Protestant 5.9 538 

Traditional/animist 8.2 748 

Ethnicity

Mossi 51.1 4,675 

Bobo/Dioula 5.7 519 

Fulfuldé / Peul 9.4 860 

Gourmatché 7.5 683 

Gourounsi 4.6 418 

Lobi/Dagara 4.7 431 

Sénoufo 4.5 412 

Touareg / Bella 2.0 187 

Bissa 3.7 340 

Others 6.7 617 

Type of place of residence 

Urban 21.1 1,927 

Rural 78.9 7,215 

 

Total 100.0 9,141 
12 

Figure 1 presents the percentage of women who participate in household decisionmaking. Fifty-nine percent participate in at least one of the three dimensions of decision-making, 

(i.e. own health care, important purchases, or family visiting). However, only about one woman 

in ten (12%) participates in all three areas of decision-making. More than half of women (52%) 

participate in decisions (either by themselves or jointly with their husband) for visiting their 

family. Smaller percentages of women participate in decisions for their own health and important 

purchases, at 24% and 21% respectively. 

Figure 1. Percentage of women who participate in the three dimensions of household decisionmaking, among currently married/cohabitating women who completed the domestic violence 

module, Burkina Faso 2010

24.0

20.5

52.2

58.9

12.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Decision for

Health

Decision for

Purchase

Decision for

Family visits

At least one

decision

Decision for

all

Percentage
13 

Analysis of women’s participation in decision-making by measures of socioeconomic 

status and background characteristics reveals important differences. As Table 2 shows, women 

with more education are more likely to participate in decisions for their own health care, large 

purchases, and family visits, compared with less educated women. Women who work for pay are 

more likely to participate in all three types of household decision-making than women who are 

not paid and women who do not work. Women from the wealthiest household quintile are more 

likely to participate in household decision-making than women in the other wealth quintiles. For 

example, 38% of women in the wealthiest quintile are involved in decision-making, about twice 

the percentage of women in the other wealth quintiles (see Table 2). 

Table 2 also shows that women’s involvement in decision-making is associated with their 

age. The older the women, the more they participate in household decisions, except for family 

visits, where differences by age are small. Also, the greater the age difference between women 

and their spouses, the less that women are involved in decision-making. With regard to decisionmaking for woman’s own health care, for instance, couples with an age difference of less than 

five years are more likely to share decisions (28%) compared with couples with a spousal age 

difference of more than 15 years (20%). 

Differences are also observed by religion and ethnicity. Catholics (33%) and Protestants 

(32%) are more likely to make decisions for their own health care than women of other religions. 

Lobi/Dagara (49%) and Gourounsi (37%) are more empowered in decision-making for women’s 

own health care compared with other ethnic groups. In making household purchasing decisions, 

Gourounsi (43%) and Bobo/Dioula (28%) are more empowered. Women in rural areas are less 

likely to make all three types of household decisions than women in urban areas (see Table 2). 
14 

Table 2. Percentage of women who participate in the three dimensions of household decisionmaking, among currently married/cohabitating women who completed the domestic violence 

module, by measures of socioeconomic status and background characteristics, Burkina Faso 

2010 

Characteristics 

Woman’s own 

health care 

Making major 

household 

purchases 

Visits to family 

or relatives 

Number of 

women 

Socioeconomic status 

Education 

No education 21.1 17.8 50.5 7,525

Primary 30.7 27.3 55.6 979

Secondary and more 48.0 43.1 66.6 638

Paid work 

Not work 14.4 15.4 50.2 1,645

Not paid 16.8 14.3 48.1 4,002

Cash paid 36.7 30.2 57.7 3,494

Wealth quintiles

Poorest 20.5 18.4 50.1 1,725

Poorer 18.9 17.1 47.5 1,857

Middle 20.2 16.4 47.2 1,880

Richer 23.2 19.0 52.7 1,903

Richest 37.7 32.2 63.7 1,776

Background characteristics

Age 

15-19 15.5 14.6 47.0 705

20-24 21.7 20.0 52.4 1,772

25-29 24.5 21.0 53.7 1,842

30-34 23.9 20.4 53.4 1,652

35-39 24.9 22.5 51.7 1,319

40-44 27.3 19.6 50.9 1,056

45-49 29.9 24.2 52.8 796

Husband-wife age difference 

Less than 5 years 28.5 25.6 54.0 1,907

5-9 years 23.5 21.2 53.5 3,030

10-14 years 24.1 20.6 51.4 1,886

15 years and more 20.6 15.4 49.5 2,265

Undetermined 28.3 18.9 52.8 53

Religion

Muslim 19.6 17.1 48.8 5,816

No religion 24.0 28.4 52.7 93

Catholic 33.3 28.4 55.1 1,945

Protestant 32.0 29.4 62.3 538

Traditional/animist 28.5 20.2 63.6 748

(Continued...)
15 

Table 2. – Continued

Characteristics 

Woman’s own 

health care 

Making major 

household 

purchases 

Visits to family 

or relatives 

Number of 

women 

Ethnicity

Mossi 23.6 19.5 48.1 4,675

Bobo/Dioula 26.8 28.1 67.1 519

Fulfuldé / Peul 14.4 14.3 34.6 860

Gourmatché 20.6 17.7 79.4 683

Gourounsi 37.0 43.3 37.8 418

Lobi/Dagara 49.4 24.7 66.3 431

Sénoufo 13.1 15.1 62.6 412

Touareg / Bella 5.3 9.7 44.1 187

Bissa 25.2 12.9 44.7 340

Others 27.4 26.4 64.0 617

Type of place of residence

Urban 35.5 30.0 60.2 1,927

Rural 20.9 18.0 50.0 7,215

Total 24.0 20.5 52.2 9,141

Note: all Pearson chi-squared tests are significant at the 95% level 

Women’s Experience of Domestic Violence and Psychological Pressure 

Figure 2 shows the percentage of women who have experienced domestic physical, 

sexual, and emotional violence, and psychological pressure from husbands/partners. 

Psychological pressure is much more widely reported than physical, sexual, or emotional 

violence. While 7% of surveyed women reported emotional violence, 8% physical violence, and 

1% sexual violence occurring in the past 12 months, 61% reported psychological pressure. As 

mentioned (see Key Variables), psychological pressure reflects such spousal attitudes as being 

jealous if the wife talks with other men, accusing the wife of unfaithfulness, and similar attitudes. 

In some cases, the spouse does not trust the woman with money or prevents her from working. 
16 

Figure 2. Percentage of women who experienced domestic violence among currently 

married/cohabitating women who completed the domestic violence module, Burkina Faso 2010 

61.1

7.2 8.8

1.1

64.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Psychological

pressure

Emotional

violence

Physical

violence

Sexual violence at least one

violence

Percentage

Table 3 presents women’s experience of violence, stratified by measures of 

socioeconomic status and background characteristics. Educated women are more likely to report 

psychological pressure than less educated women. A higher percentage of women with 

secondary or more level of education (72%) experienced psychological pressure than women 

with no education (60%). Women who do not have paid work and younger women are more 

likely to experience psychological pressure than women with paid work and older women. 

Muslim women are most likely to face psychological pressure (63%), compared with other 

religious groups. 

These trends are reversed when we consider physical violence and emotional violence. 

Results show that women with education, women who work, and older women are more likely to 

experience these forms of domestic violence, while Muslim women are least likely among the 

religious groups to experience them. Place of residence, whether rural or urban, does not show 
17 

significant differences in experience of psychological pressure or of emotional or physical 

violence. Women’s experience of sexual domestic violence, which is much less common that 

other types of domestic violence among all groups, generally does not show clear patterns by 

socioeconomic status and background characteristics (Table 3). 

Table 3. Among currently married/cohabitating women who completed the domestic violence 

module, the percentage with experience of various forms of domestic violence and psychological 

pressure, by measures of socioeconomic status and background characteristics, Burkina Faso 

2010.

Characteristics 

Psychologica

l pressure 

Emotional 

violence 

Physical 

violence 

Sexual 

violence Number 

Socioeconomic status

Education 

No education 59.5 6.5 8.3 1.0 7,525

Primary 67.0 10.0 11.6 1.6 979

Secondary and more 71.6 10.5 9.9 1.3 638

Paid work 

Not work 70.1 5.2 7.1 0.8 1,645

Not paid 58.3 6.3 8.0 1.2 4,002

Cash paid 60.2 9.1 10.5 1.2 3,494

Wealth quintiles 

Poorest 55.8 7.5 7.3 0.7 1,725

Poorer 60.7 6.9 9.1 1.5 1,857

Middle 58.7 5.3 7.7 0.9 1,880

Richer 62.4 6.4 9.0 1.2 1,903

Richest 68.1 10.0 10.7 1.4 1,776

Background characteristics

Age 

15-19 63.5 4.1 3.7 0.4 705

20-24 71.3 7.3 9.4 1.9 1,772

25-29 63.7 7.6 9.3 0.7 1,842

30-34 59.0 7.6 8.3 0.9 1,652

35-39 58.8 7.7 10.6 1.6 1,319

40-44 56.2 8.0 9.0 0.6 1,056

45-49 45.5 5.7 8.5 1.5 796

Husband-wife age difference 

Less than 5 years 62.6 9.2 11.4 1.6 1,907

5-9 years 61.7 6.9 9.2 1.3 3,030

10-14 years 59.9 7.4 8.5 0.8 1,886

(Continued...)
18 

Table 3. – Continued

Characteristics 

Psychologica

l pressure 

Emotional 

violence 

Physical 

violence 

Sexual 

violence Number 

15 years and more 60.6 5.8 6.3 0.8 2,265

Undetermined 41.5 3.8 3.8 53

Religion

Muslim 63.1 5.3 7.2 0.8 5,816

No religion 56.0 14.9 14.7 - 93

Catholic 59.2 8.3 9.9 1.6 1,945

Protestant 58.2 9.5 10.4 1.9 538

Traditional/animist 53.5 16.2 16.3 2.3 748

Ethnicity

Mossi 60.1 5.3 6.8 0.9 4,675

Bobo/Dioula 70.8 12.7 20.2 2.3 519

Fulfuldé / Peul 66.4 2.9 3.3 0.3 860

Gourmatché 44.5 6.0 6.0 0.4 683

Gourounsi 58.0 7.4 8.1 0.5 418

Lobi/Dagara 63.3 22.7 18.1 3.2 431

Sénoufo 60.2 11.4 15.5 2.7 412

Touareg / Bella 80.6 7.5 7.5 187

Bissa 59.1 7.9 7.1 1.5 340

Others 68.7 9.7 16.0 1.5 617

Type of place of residence

Urban 65.2 10.3 10.8 1.6 1,927

Rural 60.1 6.3 8.2 1.0 7,215

Total 61.1 7.2 8.8 1.1 9,141

NB: All Pearson Chi-squared test are significant except for sexual violence with the three key variables (education, 

paid work, wealth quintiles). Only four situations1

 have significance at 5 %. 

 

1

 Psychological pressure with husband-wife age difference, emotional violence with age in five-year groups, sexual 

violence with wealth quintiles and place of residence. 
19 

RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION 

Participating in Decision-Making 

Table 4 presents results from three logistic regressions for decision-making. The analysis 

was done for three dependent variables: women’s participation in decisions for her own health 

care, decisions for large household purchases, and decisions about visits to family or relatives. 

The results present the adjusted associations between each of the three measures of 

socioeconomic status and women’s participation in household decision-making, after controlling 

for key characteristics that could confound the association. 

After controlling for key background characteristics, each of the three key measures of 

socioeconomic status is significantly associated with at least two of the three forms of decisionmaking. The results show that the odds of participating in each type of decision-making are 

higher among educated women than among women with less formal education. Women with 

secondary or higher education are twice as likely to participate in decisions for their own health 

care and visits to family than women with no education. Women with primary education also 

show more involvement in decision-making regarding their own health care and family visits, 

compared with women without any formal education. 

Women who are paid for work have higher odds of participating in the three types of 

decision-making, compared with women who are not paid for work. They have twice the odds of 

participating in decisions for their own health care, or for family visits, compared with women 

who are not paid. They are also 1.4 times more likely to participate in decisions regarding major 

household purchases. The odds of participating in decisions for their own health care and for 

large household purchases are highest among women living in the richest household quintile, but 

wealth status does not have a significant association with decisions concerning family visits. 

As observed with descriptive analysis, older women are more likely to participate in 

decision-making than younger women. Women age 45-49 are more likely to participate in 

decisions for their own health care compared with women age 35-39, while young women (age 

15-24) are less likely to participate in decisions for their own health care than women age 35-39. 

It does not appear that there are significant differences between women by age difference 

between spouses, religion, and place of residence. The differences between place of residence 
20 

and women’s decision-making found in bivariate results disappear after controlling for other 

variables. 

Table 4. Adjusted associations between measures of socioeconomic status and women’s 

participation in household decision-making, among married/cohabitating women who completed 

the domestic violence module, Burkina Faso 2010 

Characteristics 

Decision for own health 

care 

Decision for 

purchases 

Decision for family 

visits 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Inf Sup Inf Sup Inf Sup 

Education 

No education 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Primary 1.27 ** 1.05 1.54 1.02 0.86 1.21 1.29 ** 1.06 1.56

Secondary and more 1.97 *** 1.44 2.71 1.30 * 1.00 1.68 2.04 *** 1.54 2.71

Paid work 

Not paid 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Cash paid 2.39 *** 1.92 2.96 1.38 *** 1.15 1.65 2.22 *** 1.76 2.79

Not work 0.80 0.57 1.11 1.19 0.93 1.53 1.03 0.74 1.42

Wealth quintiles 

Poorest 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Poorer 0.98 0.79 1.21 1.03 0.87 1.21 0.90 0.72 1.12

Middle 1.13 0.91 1.39 1.06 0.87 1.29 0.91 0.73 1.13

Richer 1.20 0.94 1.52 1.30 ** 1.06 1.60 0.96 0.75 1.23

Richest 1.60 ** 1.14 2.24 1.83 *** 1.40 2.39 1.27 0.91 1.79

Age 

35-39 1.00 1.00 1.00 

15-19 1.31 0.99 1.74 1.20 0.95 1.52 1.27 0.97 1.68

20-24 1.49 ** 1.10 2.03 1.28 * 1.01 1.62 1.33 * 1.00 1.77

25-29 1.39 * 1.02 1.90 1.29 * 1.02 1.65 1.26 0.94 1.69

30-34 1.46 * 1.07 1.98 1.21 0.94 1.58 1.42 * 1.07 1.89

40-44 1.73 *** 1.23 2.42 1.15 0.87 1.51 1.18 0.86 1.63

45-49 2.06 *** 1.46 2.91 1.33 * 1.01 1.76 1.69 *** 1.20 2.36

Husband-wife age difference 

Less than 5 years 1.00 1.00 1.00 

5-9 years 0.84 * 0.71 0.99 1.03 0.90 1.19 0.86 0.73 1.02

10-14 years 0.97 0.81 1.16 1.00 0.86 1.16 0.91 0.75 1.09

15 years and more 0.82 * 0.69 0.98 0.98 0.84 1.14 0.66 *** 0.54 0.81

Undetermined 1.46 0.61 3.50 1.09 0.53 2.24 1.00 0.41 2.45

Religion 

Muslim 1.00 1.00 1.00 

No religion 1.00 0.48 2.07 0.78 0.43 1.41 1.39 0.74 2.62

(Continued...)
21 

Table 4. – Continued

Characteristics 

Decision for own health 

care 

Decision for 

purchases 

Decision for family 

visits 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Inf Sup Inf Sup Inf Sup 

Catholic 1.41 *** 1.18 1.68 1.00 0.83 1.21 1.38 *** 1.14 1.67

Protestant 1.52 *** 1.15 2.02 0.94 0.69 1.27 1.57 *** 1.18 2.08

Traditional/animist 1.23 0.90 1.70 1.10 0.83 1.47 1.25 0.84 1.86

Ethnicity 

Mossi 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Bobo/Dioula 0.83 0.57 1.21 2.06 *** 1.46 2.91 1.15 0.75 1.76

Fulfuldé / Peul 0.61 ** 0.42 0.88 0.59 *** 0.42 0.82 0.71 0.50 1.02

Gourmatché 0.84 0.57 1.26 4.93 *** 3.18 7.65 0.80 0.55 1.18

Gourounsi 1.62 * 1.07 2.46 0.65 0.39 1.07 2.71 *** 1.77 4.15

Lobi/Dagara 2.34 *** 1.67 3.27 1.99 *** 1.37 2.87 0.91 0.60 1.39

Sénoufo 0.50 *** 0.33 0.77 1.86 *** 1.45 2.39 0.78 0.51 1.19

Touareg / Bella 0.28 * 0.09 0.91 0.98 0.47 2.03 0.61 0.25 1.49

Bissa 1.09 0.75 1.59 0.87 0.61 1.23 0.59 ** 0.38 0.90

Others 1.03 0.73 1.46 1.77 *** 1.37 2.28 1.25 0.91 1.73

Type of place of residence 

Urban 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Rural 0.99 0.74 1.33 1.08 0.85 1.36 1.05 0.79 1.41

NB: Significance *=5%; **= 1%; ***=1‰. 

Experience of Domestic Violence and Psychological Pressure 

Table 5 presents results from logistic regression for experience of various forms of 

domestic violence and psychological pressure. Of the three measures of socioeconomic status, 

two (education and wealth quintiles) are significantly associated with women’s experience of a 

form of violence, and this association is significant only for psychological pressure. After 

adjusting for control variables, women with secondary or higher education have greater odds of 

experiencing psychological violence than women with no education. But the differences are not 

significant for experience of physical, emotional, or sexual violence. Similarly, wealth status is 

significant for psychological pressure but not for the other domestic violence outcomes. The 

odds of experiencing psychological pressure are highest among women in the richest household 

quintile. They are 1.5 times more likely to experience psychological pressure than women in the 

poorest household quintile. The effects are not statistically significant for the other wealth 

quintiles. 
22 

Older women are less likely to experience psychological violence than women age 35-39 

(the reference group). However, young women are more likely to experience psychological 

violence than women age 35-39. Considering emotional and physical violence, the differences 

are significant but remain low. Animist women are more likely to experience emotional and 

physical violence than Muslim women. For other types of domestic violence, the differences are 

not statistically significant. By ethnicity, the odds of experiencing psychological pressure, 

emotional violence, and physical violence are higher among Lobi/Dagara and Bobo/Dioula 

women than Mossi women (the reference group). Gourmantché women are less likely to 

experience psychological pressure than Mossi women, while Toureg/Bella are more likely to 

experience it. The differences are not significant for urban-rural residence, except for emotional 

violence. The odds of experience of emotional violence are greatest for rural women. 
23 

Table 5. Adjusted associations between measures of socioeconomic status and women’s 

experience of domestic violence, among married/cohabitating women who completed the 

domestic violence module, Burkina Faso 2010

Characteristics 

Psychological 

pressure 

Emotional 

violence 

Physical 

violence 

Sexual 

violence 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Inf Sup Inf Sup Inf Sup Inf Sup 

Education 

No education 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Primary 1.21 * 1.00 1.45 1.27 0.93 1.73 1.13 0.87 1.47 1.14 0.59 2.22

Secondary and more 1.43 ** 1.08 1.89 1.08 0.70 1.68 0.83 0.53 1.29 0.75 0.27 2.07

Paid work 

Not paid 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Cash paid 0.91 0.78 1.07 1.10 0.86 1.41 1.20 0.95 1.52 0.81 0.50 1.32

Not work 1.29 0.97 1.71 0.78 0.55 1.10 0.97 0.70 1.35 0.71 0.33 1.55

Wealth quintiles 

Poorest 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Poorer 1.15 0.98 1.35 1.05 0.76 1.44 1.30 0.94 1.80 2.09 0.88 4.97

Middle 1.09 0.91 1.30 0.83 0.59 1.16 1.12 0.83 1.52 1.24 0.47 3.27

Richer 1.26 * 1.03 1.53 0.90 0.65 1.25 1.18 0.85 1.63 1.47 0.63 3.44

Richest 1.57 *** 1.19 2.06 1.08 0.70 1.66 1.22 0.78 1.90 1.31 0.46 3.78

Age 

35-39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

15-19 1.44 *** 1.15 1.80 1.77 * 1.09 2.89 2.56 *** 1.55 4.23 3.93 ** 1.39 11.12

20-24 1.04 0.83 1.29 1.78 ** 1.13 2.80 2.49 *** 1.50 4.13 1.37 0.47 4.01

25-29 0.86 0.69 1.08 1.73 * 1.08 2.76 2.20 *** 1.33 3.64 1.89 0.65 5.49

30-34 0.86 0.67 1.10 1.69 * 1.02 2.81 2.79 *** 1.68 4.63 3.12 * 0.99 9.80

40-44 0.75 * 0.58 0.97 1.78 * 1.06 2.99 2.24 ** 1.26 3.98 1.22 0.34 4.35

45-49 0.49 *** 0.38 0.63 1.22 0.69 2.15 2.22 ** 1.24 3.98 2.87 0.84 9.78

Husband-wife age difference 

Less than 5 years 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

5-9 years 0.97 0.84 1.12 0.79 0.60 1.04 0.87 0.69 1.08 0.89 0.51 1.55

10-14 years 0.95 0.82 1.11 0.91 0.68 1.21 0.84 0.63 1.10 0.64 0.28 1.46

15 years and more 1.05 0.89 1.24 0.77 0.57 1.06 0.64 ** 0.46 0.90 0.59 0.29 1.19

Undetermined 0.47 * 0.23 0.96 0.46 0.11 1.91 0.41 0.11 1.50 - - - -

Religion 

Muslim 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

No religion 0.93 0.42 2.07 2.90 ** 1.32 6.38 1.83 0.81 4.16 - - - -

Catholic 0.91 0.77 1.07 1.26 0.96 1.65 1.16 0.92 1.47 1.79 0.85 3.79

Protestant 0.96 0.74 1.24 1.58 0.97 2.59 1.24 0.78 1.97 2.30 0.88 5.99

Traditional/animist 0.81 0.61 1.08 2.21 *** 1.53 3.19 1.83 *** 1.26 2.64 2.31 0.80 6.70

(Continued...)
24 

Table 5. – Continued

Characteristics 

Psychological 

pressure 

Emotional 

violence 

Physical 

violence 

Sexual 

violence 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Odds 

Ratio 

95 % CI 

Inf Sup Inf Sup Inf Sup Inf Sup 

Ethnicity 

Mossi 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Bobo/Dioula 1.69 * 1.06 2.67 1.92 ** 1.18 3.11 2.72 *** 1.86 3.97 1.82 0.70 4.75

Fulfuldé / Peul 1.37 * 1.06 1.77 0.65 0.40 1.07 0.50 * 0.29 0.88 0.54 0.14 2.06

Gourmatché 0.61 *** 0.45 0.84 0.90 0.52 1.56 0.78 0.47 1.28 0.43 0.13 1.47

Gourounsi 0.98 0.72 1.33 1.12 0.64 1.95 1.03 0.62 1.72 0.45 0.09 2.36

Lobi/Dagara 1.55 * 1.06 2.27 3.30 *** 2.17 5.01 2.07 *** 1.33 3.23 2.44 0.69 8.62

Sénoufo 1.01 0.72 1.42 2.18 *** 1.50 3.15 2.28 *** 1.55 3.34 2.48 * 1.19 5.16

Touareg / Bella 2.74 *** 1.41 5.36 2.29 0.90 5.82 1.44 0.53 3.92 - - - -

Bissa 0.97 0.74 1.29 1.57 * 1.00 2.46 1.02 0.60 1.73 1.47 0.38 5.74

Others 1.48 ** 1.11 1.99 1.73 ** 1.18 2.55 2.36 *** 1.71 3.25 1.36 0.53 3.50

Type of place of residence 

Urban 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Rural 1.18 0.92 1.51 0.62 *** 0.46 0.84 0.82 0.59 1.13 0.56 0.30 1.04

NB: Significance *=5%; **= 1%; ***=1‰. 
25 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

This paper has investigated the relationship between socioeconomic differences among 

women in Burkina Faso and their empowerment in the household, as measured by women’s 

participation in decision-making in the couple and their experience of domestic violence. By 

showing that high levels of human capital and financial autonomy greatly influence women’s 

participation in decision-making, our analysis is consistent with previous studies on women’s 

decision-making in other countries. Yet, while our study raises many questions it provides few 

answers regarding the relationship between women’s socioeconomic status and domestic 

violence. 

Consistent with the findings of Boateng et al. (2012) in Ghana and Acharya et al. (2010) 

in Nepal, and also supporting our first hypothesis, we found that relative to women with no 

formal education, women with secondary education or more are more likely to be involved in all 

three dimensions of decision-making studied. Women with primary education also show more 

involvement in decision-making regarding their own health care or family visiting. These results 

can be attributed to the fact that educated women are likely to be better able in terms of 

knowledge to negotiate their participation in household decisions, and to some extent also 

because women with more education are in a better position to have paid work. 

In line with studies in others settings, our findings reveal that having paid employment is 

also a factor positively and significantly associated with women’s greater say on all aspects of 

household decision-making, supporting our second hypothesis. Women who are paid for work 

might be better able to make their case in household bargaining, as they have the means of 

supporting the costs related to their own health care as well as in major purchases. 

The results also support our hypothesis that the poorest women would be less involved in 

decision-making. We found that women living in the richest households were more likely to be 

involved in the decision-making for their own health care and for purchase of important items 

than women living in the poorest households. The lack of association between wealth status and 

family visiting can be explained by the fact that, due to their high social standing, wealthy 

women usually do not go to visit; rather, others come to visit them (Boateng et al. 2012). 

Unlike the association with decision-making, the key indicators of socioeconomic 

differences considered in the study were weakly significant in their association with domestic 
26 

violence, and they support very little of our hypothesis regarding this outcome. Only 

psychological pressure is related to education and household wealth; women with more 

education and the richest group of women are more likely than non-educated women or the 

poorest group of women to report psychological pressure. The finding of higher reporting of 

psychological violence by the most educated women corroborates findings from Amoakohene 

(2004) in Ghana, and Yount and Carrera (2006) in Cambodia. 

One explanation of this result could be that educated women might be more likely to 

distinguish and report this type of subtle violence, and also that education gives women more 

resources to react to specific stressful situations. Yount and Carrera (2006) also attribute the 

greater reporting of psychological violence by educated women to the fact that husbands 

threatened by their wives’ level of education may use non-physical violence to assert their 

dominance, as more highly educated wives may be better able to prevent physical abuse. 

Contrary to most studies, our study does not find cash-paid work to be associated with 

domestic violence. As explained above, it could be that women in Burkina Faso are still too 

compliant with patriarchal cultural norms to challenge their husbands’ authority, even when they 

contribute financially to household maintenance by working for pay. 

We also found some of our control variables to be significantly associated with two of 

our empowerment outcome variables. Consistent with Boateng et al. (2012), our findings show 

that age is an important determinant of women’s participation in decision-making with regard to 

their own health care and family visiting. Reasons for this association could be that, as outlined 

in the research literature on Africa, women gain authority as they age and they are more listened 

to in the community, which could also explain why the oldest women in the study were less 

likely than the youngest women to report psychological pressure. At the same time, their lack of 

voice on major household purchases could be due to the fact that old women tend to be less 

wealthy than their husbands. In the same way, our study found that the youngest women are 

more likely than older women to report all types of domestic violence, which agrees with 

findings of other studies (Frias and Angel 2005; Weaver et al. 1997). 

Another interesting result in line with others studies conducted in African contexts is the 

role of ethnicity (Kritz and Makinwa-Adebusoye 1999). Compared with Mossi women (the 

reference group) in our logistic regressions, Bobo/Diula, Gourmantche, Senoufo, and 
27 

Lobi/Dagara women appear to have greater control over household decisions, being significantly 

more likely to have a say on major household purchases. The behavior of these groups of women 

is in line with what the literature says about their being traditionally more autonomous. 

Nevertheless, a striking result is that the same Bobo/Diula, Senoufo, and Lobi/Dagara women, 

despite showing strong bargaining power in the couple, are more likely to report emotional and 

physical abuse. One interpretation of this result could be that, unlike other women in the 

Burkinabe society, women in these ethnic groups would be more challenging to their husbands’ 

authority. 

While weakly related to domestic violence, religion appears also as an important factor 

for the setting of Burkinabe women’s empowerment in the household, with Christian women 

being more likely to be involved in decision-making than Muslim women. Husband-wife age 

differences and rural-urban residence do not play major roles in women’s empowerment in 

Burkina Faso, as measured by our outcome variables. 

All in all, considering both outcome variables included in this research, decision-making 

and domestic violence, it appears that although education and employment play key roles as 

resources that enhance women’s bargaining ability in the couple, they are not sufficient in 

asserting women’s empowerment. Also, those factors tell very little about domestic violence, 

which is not widely reported in Burkina Faso, in contrast with what is generally said about this 

issue in African countries (Appiah and Cusack 1999, cited by Amoakohene 2004; Bowman 

2003; Jewkes et al. 2002). It could be that the socioeconomic factors included in this study are 

more closely related to women’s actual state of empowerment (as indicated by decision-making), 

than to the setting for empowerment (presence of domestic violence in the home). 

This last finding highlights the importance of cultural context in identifying and 

understanding domestic violence (Ilika 2005; Yount and Carrera 2006). It also raises questions 

about the phenomenon of domestic violence in Burkina Faso society. The generally poor link 

between domestic violence and socioeconomic status as well as other women’s characteristics 

has to be read in association with the low prevalence of reported domestic violence in Burkina 

Faso. It might be that men in Burkina Faso would be unusually non-violent partners compared 

with men in other African countries. This is because, whatever their level of education or 

contribution to household wealth, having a conjugal home is a central issue for women in 
28 

Burkinabe society (Attané 2009; Bertho 2012; Thorsen 2002). Factors surrounding women’s 

empowerment are one of the causes of domestic violence. Women in Burkina Faso might be 

unlikely to question the patriarchal norms that still rule the relations between husbands and wives 

and certainly would not dispute their husbands’ power into the household. Therefore, husbands 

do not need to exercise their authority by perpetrating violence. Perhaps also, the egalitarian 

gender role vision is not universally shared. 

Ultimately, our results on domestic violence show the major limitation of this study, 

which is that it uses quantitative survey data. The low prevalence of domestic violence in 

Burkina Faso may result in part from methodological issues. Some studies have found that the 

estimated prevalence of domestic violence is lower in the DHS than in focused surveys (Ellsberg 

et al. 2001). Those studies have emphasized the challenges of administering questions and 

obtaining responses on sensitive subjects such as domestic violence (Levinson, cited by Randall 

et al. 2013; Ellsberg et al. 2001). They have found it even more difficult in large-scale surveys 

designed primarily for other purposes. This might especially apply to Burkina Faso, where 

disclosing intimate issues to strangers is badly perceived in society (Randall et al. 2013). 

Furthermore, there is a form of social pressure that would expect women to present a good image 

of their couple. They might thus be reluctant to disclose intimate partner violence or might 

downplay their experiences of being abused, as they see similar cases all around them and do not 

want to make it a big issue. 

Moreover, when it comes to sexual relations in the couple, women might view it as a 

private area that should not and cannot be brought outside the conjugal home. But also, wife 

beating is not well regarded traditionally. This could account for why psychological pressure is 

more reported than other forms of domestic abuse, because it may be a less evident form of 

violence. 

This study reaffirms the complexity of how to empower women. Although, it constitutes 

a start to the knowledge and the understanding of women’s empowerment in Burkina Faso, 

where to our knowledge there is a scarcity of studies on this issue. Our findings confirm the 

major role of education for improving women’s status and provide additional arguments for the 

continuity of actions in favor of girl’s education at higher levels of schooling in addition to the 

primary level. The development of national policies and programs aiming to substantially 
29 

increase women’s status in Burkina Faso should also consider women’s economic position, as 

well as fostering positive socio-cultural attitudes toward gender equality. Finally, more extensive 

investigations are needed to understand the specific situations of households in Burkina Faso 

regarding domestic violence. 
30 

REFERENCES 

Acharya, D.R., J.S. Bell, P. Simkhada, E.R.v. Teijlingen, and P.R. Regmi. 2010. "Women’s 

Autonomy in Household Decision-Making: A Demographic Study in Nepal." 

Reproductive Health 7(15). 

Amoakohene, M.I. 2004. "Violence against Women in Ghana: A Look at Women's Perceptions 

and Review of Policy and Social Responses." Social Science & Medicine 59(11): 2373-

2385. 

Attané, A. 2009. "Se marier à Ouahigouya: argent et mutations des rapports sociaux de sexe, 

d'âge et de génération au Burkina Faso." In La valeur des liens. Hommes, femmes et 

transactions familiales, edited by A. Martial. Toulouse, Editions des Presses 

Universitaires du Mirail, collection Les anthropologiques, page 25-46. 

Bertho, B. 2012. "Trajectoires et revendications féminines dans le règlement des différends 

conjugaux autour de deux études de cas en milieu Mossi (Burkina Faso)." Autrepart

2(61): 99-115. 

Boateng, G.O., V.Z. Kuuire, M. Ung, J.A. Amoyaw, F.A. Armah, and I. Luginaah. 2012. 

"Women's Empowerment in the Context of Millennium Development Goal 3: A Case 

Study of Married Women in Ghana." Social Indicators Research 1(22). 

Bowman, C.G. 2003. "Domestic Violence: Does the African Context Demand a Different 

Approach?" International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 26: 473–491. 

Calvès, A.E. 2009. "«Empowerment»: généalogie d’un concept clé du discours contemporain sur 

le développement." Revue Tiers Monde 4(200): 735-749. 

Charmes, J., and S. Wieringa. 2003. "Measuring Women's Empowerment: An Assessment of the 

Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure." Journal of 

Human Development 4(3): 419-435. 

Cooper, H. 2002. "Investigating Socio-Economic Explanations for Gender and Ethnic 

Inequalities in Health." Social Science & Medicine 54(5): 693-706. 

Cueva Beteta, H. 2006. "What Is Missing in Measures of Women's Empowerment?" Journal of 

Human Development 7(2): 221-241. 
31 

Ellsberg, M., L. Heise, R. Pena, S. Agurto, and A. Winkvist. 2001. "Researching Domestic 

Violence against Women: Methodological and Ethical Considerations." Studies in Family 

Planning 32(1): 1-16. 

Fox, W. 1999. "Statistiques Sociales." Les Presses de l’Université Laval de Boeck Université. 

Frias, S.M., and R.J. Angel. 2005. "The Risk of Partner Violence among Low-Income Hispanic 

Subgroups." Journal of Marriage and Family 67(3): 552-564. 

Furuta, M., and S. Salway. 2006. "Women’s Position within the Household as a Determinant of 

Maternal Health Care Use in Nepal." International Family Planning Perspectives 32(1): 

17–27. 

Hofman, E. 2003. "Comment évaluer l’empowerment des femmes défavorisées? Eléments de 

réflexion à partir de projets de développement dans des pays du Sud." In 5èmes Journées 

Françaises de l'évaluation, SFE (Société Française d'Evaluation). Limoges. 

Ilika, A.L. 2005. "Women's Perception of Partner Violence in a Rural Igbo Community." African 

Journal of Reproductive Health / La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive 9(3): 77-

88. 

Jewkes, R., J. Levin, and L. Penn-Kekana. 2002. "Risk Factors for Domestic Violence: Findings 

from a South African Cross-Sectional Study." Social Science & Medicine 55(9): 1603-

1617. 

Kabeer, N. 2005. "Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment: A Critical Analysis of the 

Third Millennium Development Goal." Gender and Development 13(1): 13-24. 

Kabeer, N. 1999. "The Conditions and Consequences of Choices: Reflections on the 

Measurement of Women's Empowerment." Geneva, Switzerland: UNRISD. 

Kaye, D.K., F. Mirembe, A.M. Ekstrom, G. Bantebya, and A. Johansson. 2005. "The Social 

Construction and Context of Domestic Violence in Wakiso District, Uganda." Culture, 

Health & Sexuality 7(6): 625-635. 

Kishor, S. 2000. "Empowerment of Women in Egypt and Links to the Survival and Health of 

Their Infants." In Women’s Empowerment and Demographic Processes: Moving beyond 
32 

Cairo, edited by H.B. Presser and G. Sen, page 119-156, New York, New York, USA: 

Oxford University Press. 

Kishor, S., and K. Johnson. 2006. "Reproductive Health and Domestic Violence: Are the Poorest 

Women Uniquely Disadvantaged?" Demography 43(2): 293-307. 

Kocacik, F., A. Kutlar, and F. Erselcan. 2007. "Domestic Violence against Women: A Field 

Study in Turkey." The Social Science Journal 44(4): 698-720. 

Koenig, M.A., S. Ahmed, M.B. Hossain, and A.B.M.K.A. Mozumder. 2003. "Women's Status 

and Domestic Violence in Rural Bangladesh: Individual- and Community-Level Effects." 

Demography 40(2): 269-288. 

Kritz, M.M., and P. Makinwa-Adebusoye. 1999. "Determinants of Women's Decision-Making 

Authority in Nigeria: The Ethnic Dimension." Sociological Forum 14(3): 399-424. 

Malhotra, A. 2003. "Conceptualizing and Measuring Women's Empowerment as a Variable in 

International Development." In Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary 

Perspectives, Washington DC, USA: World Bank. 

Malhotra, A., and M. Mather. 1997. "Do Schooling and Work Empower Women in Developing 

Countries? Gender and Domestic Decisions in Sri Lanka." Sociological Forum 12(4): 

599-630. 

Montgomery, M.R. 2000. "Measuring Living Standards with Proxy Variables." Demography

37(2): 155–174. 

Naved, R.T., and L.A. Persson. 2008. "Factors Associated with Physical Spousal Abuse of 

Women During Pregnancy in Bangladesh." International Family Planning Perspectives

34(2): 71-78. 

Randall, S., E. Coast, N. Compaore, and P. Antoine. 2013. "The Power of the Interviewer." 

Demographic Research 28(27): 763-792. 

Sobkoviak, R.M., K.M. Yount, and N. Halim. 2012. "Domestic Violence and Child Nutrition in 

Liberia." Social Science & Medicine 74(2): 103-111. 

Thorsen, D. 2002. "‘We Help Our Husbands!’ Negotiating the Household Budget in Rural 

Burkina Faso." Development and Change 33(1): 129-146. 
33 

UNESCO. 2010. "Tendances dans l'enseignement supérieur: l'Afrique subsaharienne." In 

Bulletin d’information de l’ISU, page 7. 

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2011. "Global Education Digest 2011. Comparing Education 

Statistics across the World." Montréal: UNESCO. 

Yount, K.M., and J.S. Carrera. 2006. "Domestic Violence against Married Women in 

Cambodia." Social Forces 85(1): 355-387.