Location: Sub-saharan Africa

Beyond North Africa: Ukraine’s Agricultural Engagements with Sub-Saharan Partners

Posted on June 12, 2025 | Policy Brief

Farmworkers harvesting leafy vegetables in a lush green field with mountains in the background, illustrating hands-on labor central to Ukraine's agricultural engagements.

In recent years, the global agricultural landscape has shifted dramatically, shaped by the intersecting crises of climate change, food insecurity, geopolitical tensions, and technological disruption. Against this backdrop, Ukraine and Sub-Saharan Africa have emerged as two regions uniquely positioned to build a complementary partnership in the agri-food sector – one that not only addresses immediate humanitarian and trade challenges but also lays the groundwork for long-term sustainable development. As Ukraine looks to diversify its agricultural partnerships beyond traditional European and Asian markets, Ukraine’s agricultural engagements with Africa offer both a growing consumer base and an investment frontier where Ukraine’s expertise and surplus production capacity can meet critical demand. This policy brief explores how Ukraine’s agricultural engagements with certain African countries can deepen cooperation across the agricultural value chain. Drawing on in-depth regional analyses conducted by the Kyiv School of Economics Agrocenter (Martyshev, Stolnikovych & Piddubnyi, 2024a–d), the discussion considers strategic sectors, regional particularities, and policy innovations essential for a robust and mutually beneficial partnership.

Ukraine Agricultural Engagements with Africa: Opportunities for Growth and Partnership

Ukraine is one of the world’s most productive agricultural exporters, supplying significant volumes of wheat, corn, sunflower oil, and other essential staples. Africa, by contrast, is grappling with an array of food production and security challenges. In many regions, agricultural productivity remains stubbornly low, constrained by underinvestment, poor infrastructure, limited irrigation, climate volatility, and outdated farming techniques. Yet, Africa’s demographic trends suggest a rapidly growing demand for food. Urbanization is accelerating, dietary preferences are shifting, and consumers are increasingly looking beyond subsistence crops toward diversified and processed foods. These dynamics set the stage for Ukraine to serve not just as a food exporter, but also as a strategic partner in Africa’s agricultural transformation.

In a series of recent regional reports by the Kyiv School of Economics Agrocenter, all titled Cooperation Between Ukraine and African Countries in Agriculture, (Martyshev, Stolnikovych & Piddubnyi, 2024a,b,c,d), the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) explored the mutually beneficial opportunities for collaboration between Ukraine and Africa in the agricultural sector. The full reports covering Central, East, Southern, and West Africa are available at https://agrocenter.kse.ua. This brief summarizes the key findings and insights drawn from those reports.

Data and Methods

A standardized analytical framework across four African regions, Central, East, Southern, and West Africa, focusing on three major countries in each region, was applied. The objective was to, through data-drive insights, assess the potential for agricultural cooperation with Ukraine in food security, trade, production systems, and policy environments.

Food security analysis relies on indicators from FAOSTAT and the World Bank, including prevalence of undernourishment, dietary energy adequacy, and trends in malnutrition from 2000 to 2022.
Trade analysis uses data from UN Comtrade, ITC Trade Map, Ukrainian customs, and national sources to evaluate import-export flows, Ukraine’s market share, and commodity dependencies, particularly in cereals and vegetable oils.
Agricultural sector profiling includes employment, GDP contribution, key crop and livestock outputs, and irrigation coverage. Data are drawn from FAOSTAT, national agricultural statistics, and World Development Indicators.
Infrastructure and technology assessments are based on literature reviews and secondary sources evaluating the state of storage, logistics, irrigation, and mechanization. Attention is given to adoption of modern tools like drones and ICT platforms.
Policy and institutional reviews focus on national agricultural strategies, trade policies, food security programs, and land tenure systems, using official government documents and donor evaluations.
For East and West Africa, findings were also informed by stakeholder input from KSE Agrocenter webinars held in 2024, involving local policymakers, researchers, and trade representatives.

This mixed-methods approach enabled a comparative, region-specific understanding of agri-food challenges and opportunities relevant to Ukraine’s engagement in Africa.

Empirical Findings and Policy Recommendations

Trade: A Nascent but Promising Relationship

The trade relationship between Ukraine and Africa, while still developing, shows considerable potential. Based on empirical trade flow data, Ukraine’s primary exports to Africa include cereals like wheat and corn, along with vegetable oils. Imports from Africa, however, are minimal, revealing the one-sided nature of current trade. This asymmetry is due to limited diversification, logistical barriers, and underdeveloped bilateral trade frameworks. Trade activity is concentrated in North and West Africa, while countries in Central, Eastern and Southern Africa receive fewer Ukrainian goods. Engagement with regional trade blocs such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC) presents both regulatory hurdles and strategic entry points.

Based on observed trade gaps, the policy recommendation is to expand Ukraine’s access to African markets by negotiating preferential trade agreements and eliminating non-tariff barriers. Appointing agrarian attachés in African capitals can facilitate market entry, monitor regional regulations, and promote Ukrainian products in regional fairs and business forums.

Joint Investment Opportunities

Based on field-level evidence and investment data, agriculture in Central and East Africa is constrained by severe infrastructure deficits. Post-harvest losses, driven by the absence of proper storage, cold chains, and road networks, are estimated to cost billions in lost output annually. The strategic proposal is for Ukraine to co-invest in building post-harvest systems, leveraging its expertise in grain storage and export logistics. Ukrainian firms could collaborate with African partners on silos, warehouses, and cold storage tailored to tropical climates.

Food processing also represents a high-potential area. Many East African countries impose protective tariffs on processed food imports to stimulate local industry. Based on these findings, the policy recommendation is for Ukraine to establish agro-processing joint ventures that align with local industrial policies. These ventures would stimulate employment, reduce food imports, and strengthen Ukraine’s position in value-added agriculture abroad.

Technology Transfer Potential

Empirical assessments reveal that low mechanization, climate volatility, and limited access to agri-tech remain persistent barriers to productivity in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Ukraine, with its advanced capabilities in precision agriculture, can provide high-impact technologies such as satellite-based soil monitoring, drones for crop surveillance, and automated irrigation systems. For example, in parts of Southern Africa like Zambia and Namibia, where rainfall is unpredictable, these technologies can help stabilize crop yields and reduce risk for smallholder farmers.

The strategic proposal is for Ukrainian firms to develop demonstration farms and pilot projects that showcase these innovations. Based on successful models from Eastern Europe, these pilots could serve as training grounds for local agronomists and as proof-of-concept for scalable investment.

Regional Variability and Context-Specific Cooperation

Central Africa (e.g., the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Angola, Cameroon)

Based on food security metrics, Central Africa faces some of the highest levels of undernourishment on the continent. In DRC for example, more than one-third of the population is chronically underfed. Political instability and unclear land rights further hinder agricultural investment.

The strategic recommendation is to continue and scale humanitarian programs like “Grain from Ukraine,” while also offering technical support in veterinary services for cattle and poultry sectors, particularly in Angola and Cameroon. Ukrainian expertise in land reform and extension services could also help unlock investment in rural farming.

East Africa (e.g., Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania)

Agricultural productivity is improving in East Africa, but gaps remain. Based on infrastructure and yield data, the region struggles with limited access to farm machinery, irrigation systems, and post-harvest technology. The policy recommendation is to focus on joint research, agricultural education, and training programs that address these specific bottlenecks. Ukrainian institutions could work with African universities to design curricula on crop science, data-driven farming, and agri-business entrepreneurship. Mobile extension services and remote learning platforms could further boost rural outreach.

Southern Africa (e.g., South Africa, Botswana, Namibia)

This region has a more developed agricultural sector with export orientation and mechanization. However, environmental and political factors, such as energy shortages and water scarcity, threaten sustainability. Based on these empirical conditions, the strategic proposal is for Ukraine to engage through agri-consulting and technology partnerships. High-value inputs like hybrid seeds and automated irrigation systems can address local constraints, while cooperation on renewable energy solutions for farming could provide long-term stability.

West Africa (e.g., Nigeria, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire)

According to population and consumption data, West Africa faces mounting pressure on food systems. Despite improving domestic output, infrastructure deficits and policy inconsistency limit food availability. Based on these findings, the strategic recommendation is to invest in logistics infrastructure, such as road and rail links to key ports and warehouses, as well as to diversify the region’s agricultural base. Ukrainian seed companies could introduce crops like barley and legumes, adapted to regional climates, to reduce dependence on cocoa and palm oil.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the partnership between Ukraine and Sub-Saharan Africa in the agricultural sector is not merely a matter of commerce; it is a strategic opportunity with tangible benefits for both sides. Ukraine, as a breadbasket with advanced agri-tech capabilities, can play a pivotal role in enhancing food systems in parts of Africa where food insecurity remains acute, particularly in regions such as the Horn of Africa (e.g., Somalia and Ethiopia), the Sahel (e.g., Niger and Mali) and Central Africa (e.g., the Democratic Republic of the Congo). At the same time, many African nations offer Ukraine access to growing consumer markets, underutilized arable land, and increasing geopolitical relevance in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

To realize this vision, both sides must commit to a comprehensive, long-term strategy built on trust, transparency, and mutual benefit. The road ahead is complex but filled with promise. With smart investments, targeted diplomacy, and collaborative innovation, Ukraine and Africa can co-author a new chapter in global agriculture, one defined not by scarcity and dependency, but by resilience, growth, and shared prosperity.

References

Central Africa

Martyshev, P., Stolnikovych, H., Piddubnyi, I. (2024a). Cooperation between Ukraine and African countries in agriculture: Central Africa. Center for Food and Land Use Research at Kyiv School of Economics.
Abia, W. A., Shum, C. E., Fomboh, R. N., Ntungwe, E., & Ageh, M. T. (2016). Agriculture in Cameroon: Proposed Strategies to Sustain Productivity. International Journal for Research in Agricultural Research, 2(2), 1–14.
Africa24. (2024, January 25). Cameroon reduces state fees for agricultural enterprises by 92%.
African Development Bank. (2022). Cameroon – Agricultural Production Support Program (PARPAC).
African Development Bank. (2023). Angola – Agriculture Sector Reform Program (ASRP).
African Development Bank. (2024). African Economic Outlook 2024: Driving Africa’s Transformation.
Arsene, M. B., & Mwine Fyama, J. N. (2021). Potential threats to agricultural food production and farmers’ coping strategies in the marshlands of Kabare in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 7(1), 1933747.
Binswanger-Mkhize, H. P. (2008). Empowering Rural People for Their Own Development. FAO.
Boko, M. I., Niang, A., Nyong, C., et al. (2007). Africa Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report.
CAADP. (2013). Agriculture Investment Opportunities Brief: CAADP Investment Facilitation Programme – DRC.

East Africa

Martyshev, P., Stolnikovych, H., Piddubnyi, I. (2024b). Cooperation between Ukraine and African countries in agriculture: East Africa. Center for Food and Land Use Research at Kyiv School of Economics.
Achandi, E., Mujawamariya, G., Agboh-Noameshie, A., et al. (2018). Women’s access to agricultural technologies in rice production and processing hubs: A comparative analysis. Journal of Rural Studies, 60, 188–198.
African Development Bank. (2024). African Economic Outlook 2024.
Ayenew, M., & Arquitt, S. (2018). Kenya Agricultural Performance and Targets. CCGA Policy Brief No. 2.
Bekabil, U. T. (2014). Review of challenges in Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 4(18), 70–77.
Casaburi, L., Kremer, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2016). Contract farming and agricultural productivity in Western Kenya. In S. Edwards et al. (Eds.), African Successes, Vol IV. University of Chicago Press.
Charles, G., Jeppesen, S., Kamau, P., & Kragelund, P. (2016). Food-processing sector study. Forum for Development Studies, 44(1), 109–131.
FAO. (2015–2016). AQUASTAT Country Profiles – Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania.
Government of Kenya. (2007). Kenya Vision 2030.
Government of Tanzania. (2015). Agricultural Sector Development Strategy II (ASDS II).
Kashindi, G. (2020). Local agricultural production in Kenya. KAS African Law Study Library, 7.
Laichena, J., Kiptoo, E., et al. (2022). Kenya agricultural policy profile. IWMI/CGIAR.

Southern Africa

Martyshev, P., Stolnikovych, H., Piddubnyi, I. (2024c). Cooperation between Ukraine and African countries in agriculture: South Africa. Center for Food and Land Use Research at Kyiv School of Economics.
Acquah, B. K. (2004). In Shaping the Future of African Agriculture for Development. AAAE.
AgriSA. (2024). Key Issues for South African Agriculture.
Bank of Namibia. (2017). Feeding Namibia: Agricultural Productivity and Industrialisation.
Commission on Restitution of Land Rights. (2021). Strategic Plan 2021–2024.
Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. (2022, 2024). Agriculture and Agro-Processing Master Plan; State Land Lease and Disposal Policy.
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. (2013). NARYSEC Booklet.
Financial and Fiscal Commission. (2021). Strategic Plan 2020–2025.
Fortunato, A., & Enciso, S. (2023). Food for Growth: Namibia’s Agriculture Sector. Harvard Growth Lab.
Giesel, C. (2023). Agriculture Challenges in South Africa. Bizcommunity.
GIZ. (2020). Sector Brief: Namibia Agriculture.
Government of Namibia. (2004–2017). Vision 2030, Agriculture Policy, Development Plans, and Cooperative Policy.
Namibia Statistics Agency & UNICEF. (2021). Multidimensional Poverty Index Report.

West Africa

Martyshev, P., Stolnikovych, H., Piddubnyi, I. (2024d). Cooperation between Ukraine and African countries in agriculture: West Africa. Center for Food and Land Use Research at Kyiv School of Economics, https://kse.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/COOPERATION-BETWEEN-UKRAINE-AND-AFRICAN-COUNTRIES-IN-AGRICULTURE-WEST-AFRICA-.pdf
Banson, K., Nguyen, N., & Bosch, O. (2014, 2015). Systems Research and Behavioral Science.
Diallo, S., Fofana, I., & Diallo, M. (2020). AGRODEP Working Paper 0041. IFPRI.
FAO. (2005–2016). AQUASTAT Country Profiles – Ghana, Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire.
FAOSTAT. (2023). Food, Beverages and Tobacco Data.
FMARD. (2022). National Rice Development Strategy II (2020–2030).
Ghana Business News. (2009). The Challenge of Agriculture in Ghana.
Jalloh, A., Nelson, G., Thomas, T., et al. (2013). West African Agriculture and Climate Change. IFPRI Monograph.
JICA. (2023). Côte d’Ivoire Country Analysis Paper (JCAP).
King, C. (2008). Community resilience in agri-ecological systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(1), 111.
Kouassi, J-L., Gyau, A., et al. (2021). Land, 10(4), 429.
NEPAD. (2003). Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security.
Nitag Consults Ltd. (2009). Agricultural Development Review.
Olukunle, O. (2013). Challenges and Prospects of Agriculture in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4(16).
USDA. (2023). Nigeria Grain and Feed Update (GAIN Report NI2023-0008).

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Intimate Partner Violence, Norms and Policies

Posted on March 6, 2017 | Policy Brief

20170306 Intimate Partner Violence - FREE Policy Brief Image

Violence against women has been called by then UN Secretary-General and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Kofi Annan, “perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And, it is perhaps the most pervasive.” Although the spread of domestic violence is difficult to quantify precisely, this is uncontroversially an issue worthy of policy concern. As is often the case, the developing world lags behind. What can development cooperation do? A growing body of economic research, including our recent results, shows that improving women’s economic opportunities matters.

It is not easy to put a figure on the prevalence of violence against women. A recent review (Alhabib et al., 2010) reports that “the prevalence of lifetime domestic violence varies from 1.9% in Washington, US, to 70% in Hispanic Latinas in Southeast US.” As the quote shows, most of the currently available studies were conducted in the US or Europe, although the focus on the developing world is rapidly growing. Besides the geographic bias, the nature of data available on the matter further limits the precision of our knowledge. Surveys (used by the vast majority of studies), crime statistics and administrative health data each suffer from different limitations. One detail, though, consistently emerges in the big picture: the largest share of violence against women is perpetrated by a cohabiting partner or other family members, what is commonly referred to as intimate partner violence or domestic violence.

In addition to the human costs, a growing body of research shows that domestic violence has huge economic costs, including the direct costs of health, legal, police and other services. There are also broader social costs, more difficult to quantify. Domestic violence is likely to reduce women’s participation in productive employment and education, and has also been shown to affect the welfare and education of children.

Legislation and policy

While specific domestic violence laws were uncommon just a few decades ago, many countries have, over the past two decades, adopted or revised legislation. In 2008, the United Nations (UN) launched a dedicated initiative advocating for universal ”adoption and enforcement of national laws to address and punish all forms of violence against women and girls, in line with international human rights standards.”

Even though issues of implementation and enforcement are more important than the letter of these laws, it is still crucial that laws are there. In such an area where culture and social norms play a big role, legislation can function as a signal of what a society deems acceptable and coordinate behavior to ultimately change social norms. This is why for example the recent law change in Russia was strongly criticized, regardless of the alleged advantages of the new formulation in terms of practical implementation. [A/N: The reform decriminalized and reduced the punishment for attacks that result in “minor injuries”, as long as they do not happen more than once a year, from two years to 15 days in prison. Proponents claimed that declassifying this form of violence from criminal to administrative offense would lower the threshold for reporting, and avoid misapplication by the police for extortion purposes.]

Besides legislation, a broad range of policies in different areas play a role for the prevalence of domestic violence and the fight against it. The knowledge gaps in terms of prevalence hinder the investigation of the factors that amplify or dampen the incidence of domestic violence, and as a consequence make it more difficult to draw implications for policy strategies. Whatever improves the parity between genders and the status of women in a society is however likely to work in the right direction, at least in the long run. Among the policies with established effects in this direction are legal rights for women (for example in terms of political representation); the introduction of role models (for example through cable TV); an improved balance of economic resources within the household (see Jayachandran, 2015 for an overview of the literature).

Development policy

As for many other areas, developing countries tend to lag behind in this respect. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), domestic violence is considered a barrier to sustainable development, with 36%-70% prevalence (Garcia et al., 2005) and an estimated cost of 1.2%-3.7% of GDP (Duvvury et al., 2013). These estimates take into account a broad range of consequences for women and children. Besides direct and indirect health and life expectancy consequences, distorted outcomes for women include lower autonomy, affecting economic and financial decisions, effectiveness of home production, freedom of movement, education and labor market participation and healthcare decisions. Children are affected by distorted reproductive decisions, for example in regard to birth spacing, resulting in lower birth weights and worse chances of survival, and rearing decisions in general. Still these costs can be thought of as a lower bound, given the conservatism of the methodology and the gross under-reporting of violence. Although the main responsibility for policy lies of course within the country, we might still wonder what the international community can do to help, within the framework of development cooperation.

Aid and domestic violence

Even though the donor community agreed, in Addis Abeba in 2015, on a ”beyond aid” agenda to reach the 17 sustainable development goals (see UN, 2015), the main tool of development cooperation is currently still foreign aid. In recent research with Anders Olofsgård and Evelina Bonnier, we investigate the impact of aid on gender-related outcomes, and among them domestic violence. There are three reasons why we expect an impact of development aid on these outcomes. First of all, there may be a direct effect of aid-financed projects on the intended beneficiaries. Many aid projects have nowadays an explicit component targeting women and girls. Moreover, donors also agreed to gender ”mainstreaming” (Beijing Platform for Action, 1995), which implies that gender concerns should be integrated into all policy and program cycles, and that governments should engage in a dialogue on gender and development. This is because women and girls are seen as particularly vulnerable in situations of poverty and conflict, but also potentially instrumental in the general process of development (Duflo, 2012).

Second, aid projects are typically intended to benefit whole communities, and there are often positive externalities that extend beyond the immediately targeted beneficiaries and beyond the stated objectives of the project. Think for instance of immunization drives against infectious diseases (Miguel and Kremer, 2004). When a big enough group of school children are treated against, for example, intestinal worms, far larger communities are also protected due to the now lower probability of contagion, and also the indirect benefits extend to them. Projects targeting livelihoods and jobs can also increase aggregate demand in the community, benefiting those not directly involved in the projects. The ultimate level of spillover goes through economy-wide growth and development. Research shows that gender relations tend to become more equal with economic development and that women tend to gain more than men (Duflo, 2012).

Finally, beyond economic opportunities, positive spillovers can come through transmission of information and attitudes, changing social norms through personal networks, including both direct beneficiaries and others.

Figure 1. Effect of aid on domestic violence

Source: Berlin et al., forthcoming

Figure 1 is based on our empirical investigation linking the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) in Uganda and Malawi to information on the geographical coordinates of aid projects placement, provided by AidData. Men in the areas exposed to aid (which we define to be within a 15 km radius of at least one aid-financed project) are 11% more likely to share the opinion that beating one’s wife is not justifiable, as compared to men not exposed to aid. This difference is even larger than for women (4%). Most importantly, women exposed to aid are less likely to have experienced some form of violence, physical (–3%), emotional (–9%) and in particular sexual (–24%). We think this might be connected to the improved status of the woman in economic terms. In fact, we find much more modest impacts from exposure to specifically gender-targeted projects (examples of which include “Community participation and development”, “Support for vulnerable groups”, “Improvement of outpatient, maternal and child health services”, “Women’s empowerment for peace”, and “Anti-trafficking for women and children”). We also find that aid presence affects labor market participation for women, but do not find this effect from gender-specific aid. This is consistent with the idea that women’s relative status within the household improves as a consequence of better economic opportunities, in this case induced by aid. Evidence supporting this mechanism is piling up, see Aizer (2010), Bobonis et al. (2013), Heath (2014), Anderberg et al. (2016), Hidrobo et al. (2016), to cite just a few. The types of activities that fall under our definition of gender-specific aid, instead, do not seem to contribute in this respect.

Conclusion

Summarizing recent research, the World Development Report 2015 called for development policy to focus on norms and mental models. These are often highly persistent and hard to change. We know that gender-related norms are important for outcomes that deeply affect the lives of women and girls. We do not know a lot about how to change them, but improving the status of women and girls in society seems to be one important piece of the puzzle. Our recent findings about the impacts of aid imply, echoing the WDR 2015, that this should be an important goal for development cooperation.

References

Alhabib, Samia; Ull Nur; and Roger Jones. 2010. ”Domestic Violence Against Women: Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies”, Journal of Family Violence, 25, pp 369–382.
Aizer, Anna, 2010. ”The Gender Wage Gap and Domestic Violence”, The American economic review. 100(4),1847-1859.
Anderberg, Dan; Rainer, H., Wadsworth, J., & Wilson, T., 2016. “Unemployment and Domestic Violence: Theory and Evidence.” The Economic Journal 126.597, pp 1947-1979.
Berlin, Maria P.; Evelina Bonnier; and Anders Olofsgård, forth. “The Donor Footprint and Gender Gaps”, UNU-WIDER Working Paper Series.
Bobonis, Gustavo J.; Melissa González-Brenes; and Roberto Castro, 2013. “Public Transfers and Domestic Violence: The Roles of Private Information and Spousal Control.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5, no. 1
Duflo, Esther, 2012. “Women empowerment and economic development”, Journal of Economic Literature, 50(4), 1051-79.
Duvvury, Nata; Callan, A.; Carney, P.; and Raghavendra, S.; 2013. ”Intimate partner violence: Economic costs and implications for growth and development.” Women’s Voice, Agency, & Participation Research Series, 3.
García-Moreno, Claudia; Jansen, H. A. F. M.; Ellsberg, M.; Heise, L.; and Watts, C., 2005. ”WHO Multicountry Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women: summary report of initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses.” World Health Organization. Geneva.
Jayachandran, Seema. 2015. “The roots of gender inequality in developing countries.” economics 7.1, pp 63-88.
Heath, Rachel, 2014. “Women’s access to labor market opportunities, control of household resources, and domestic violence: Evidence from Bangladesh.” World Development 57, pp 32-46.
Hidrobo, Melissa; Amber Peterman; and Lori Heise, 2016. “The Effect of Cash, Vouchers, and Food Transfers on Intimate Partner Violence: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Northern Ecuador.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 8.3, pp 284-303.
UN, 2015. ”Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” United Nations – Sustainable Development knowledge platform.

Save