There are calls for New Zealand’s Family Violence Act to name economic harm as a standalone type of violence, rather than a subcategory of psychological abuse, to bring it in line with the United Kingdom and Australia.
Economic harm – restricting access to, sabotaging or exploiting another person’s financial resources, and impeding their economic autonomy – is increasingly recognised as a form of family violence. And it can happen to anyone.
According to our ongoing research and previous studies, one in seven New Zealanders has experienced economic harm in their intimate relationships.
Like other forms of family violence, economic and financial harm affects victims’ physical and mental health, and increases housing instability and financial insecurity.
To understand how widespread economic harm is in New Zealand, we surveyed 993 people aged 18 and over. We asked if they had experienced a list of 19 harmful financial behaviours during the previous 12 months – and how often.
The prevalence of financial abuse
The vast majority of studies on wider intimate partner violence ask between three and five questions about money while measuring other types of violence. Instead, we focused only on capturing a wide range of financial behaviours and economic harm.
Examples of what we looked at included withholding financial information, using household money for other nonessential purchases, and intentionally paying bills late to hurt a partner’s credit rating.
Some behaviours were more prevalent than others. Across all 19 behaviours, an average of one in seven respondents (15.1%) reported experiencing a given behaviour at least half the time during their relationship in the preceding 12 months. One in seven said they had experienced at least 10 of the behaviours.
While caution is needed when comparing different studies, our findings are similar to research in New Zealand and elsewhere, including from the United Kingdom.
Among the most prevalent behaviours experienced was action to “withhold or hide financial information or money from you” (17.6%). This was followed by “intentionally paying bills late or not paying bills that were in your name or in both your names” (17%).
Approximately one in five respondents reported their partner using their “money or household money for excessive gambling or alcohol/drug consumption”. A similar number said their partner used “online banking or banking apps (bank technology) to “pressure, coerce or threaten” them.
The use of online platforms such as banking apps and transactions as a tool to cause harm has led an increasing number of banks in New Zealand and Australia to explicitly name economic harm as inappropriate customer conduct in their terms and conditions.
The “historical” prevalence of economic harm (behaviours experienced in a previous relationship, more than 12 months ago) was much higher than that experienced by a current or former partner within the past 12 months.
We interpret this as evidence of money being a leading cause of relationship breakdown. This finding suggests individuals may be better able to identify their experience as abuse, or disclose harmful behaviours after the relationship has ended.
Invisible to outsiders
Economic harm rarely appears obvious to outsiders, and household income or individual earning power is not always indicative of access to financial resources. Unsafe and harmful behaviours hide behind cultural taboos around money.
Victims may also not immediately realise they are being harmed. They are unlikely to have the financial independence or agency to make decisions an outsider thinks they can or should.
Importantly, one in four survey respondents also reported knowing of someone they believed was being financially harmed. Given our general lack of understanding and awareness of economic harm, this finding offers hope.
Continual advocacy, backed by research and the many organisations and corporates working to improve knowledge and toolkits for survivors, will keep financial safety on the agenda.
As well as the often devastating personal experiences of financial harm, the cost to the broader economy is high. While figures are unclear for New Zealand, the economic impact on Australia in 2020 was estimated to be AUD$5.2 billion in lost productivity and mental health costs.
Changing the law
In the Asia-Pacific, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation has launched the “Empower Finance” programme to help financial institutions identify and address financial harm across the region.
Family violence agencies, advocates, and financial organisations have called for New Zealand’s Family Violence Act to name economic harm as a standalone type of violence, rather than a subcategory of psychological abuse.
Such a move would bring New Zealand in line with the United Kingdom and Australia. In Queensland and New South Wales, non-physical patterns of abuse, such as economic harm, are criminalised under new coercive control laws.
While New Zealand waits for legislative change, everyone can work to understand the behaviours that cause economic harm. This can include breaking down the taboos around talking about money, particularly in relationships.
If you believe you or someone you care about is experiencing economic harm, you can find more information at Good Shepherd in NZ, and the Centre for Women’s Economic Safety in Australia.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.