Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Hoeffler, A. (2017). What are the costs of violence? Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 16, 422-445.

Abstract: This article presents estimates of the global cost of collective and interpersonal violence for the period of one year. This includes war, terrorism, homicides, assaults and domestic violence against women and children. The cost of conventionally defined interpersonal violence, that is, homicides and assault, are about 7.5 times higher than the cost due to war and terrorism. I also estimate the costs of non-fatal domestic violence against children and women and suggest that these costs are much higher than the combined costs of homicide, assault, terrorism and war. The main reason is that the prevalence of these types of violence is very high: possibly as many as 16 per cent of all children are punished using violent methods and about 12 per cent of all women experience intimate partner violence. Richer societies have lower levels of violence, and there is evidence that prevalence rates have been declining over time. However, it is often unclear why this is the case. Much of the evidence from violence reducing interventions comes from high-income countries, and it is uncertain whether these programs would be similarly effective in low- and middle-income countries. However, although further research is needed to examine the effectiveness of violence-reducing interventions, it appears likely that some interventions would constitute a very effective use of resources.

Journal Article 2: Garland, J. (2011). Difficulties in defining hate crime victimization. International Review of Victimology, 18, 25-37.

Abstract: This article analyses the issues involved with deciding which identity groups are categorized as specific hate crime victim groups and which are not. It assesses whether theories of hate crime based around hierarchical notions of group dominance and subordination are helpful in determining which groups should be included under the hate crime ‘umbrella’. Through a discussion of the victimization of disabled people, the elderly and the homeless, the article outlines key concepts – relating to community, risk, harm and vulnerability – that are central to comprehending the nature of the abuse that they suffer. It also notes the common misreading of ‘low-level’ targeted harassment as anti-social behaviour, and assesses the impact this has upon the development of a more in-depth understanding of the circumstances of victims. The article also highlights the problems with using collective terms like ‘communities’ or ‘groups’ in this context, as such entities can be very diverse – indeed ‘separate’ groups often intersect with each other. As an alternative, it is suggested that moving the debate away from collective terminology towards an understanding of the risk of targeted victimization that individuals face would be helpful when trying to assess the circumstances of disabled people, the elderly and the homeless, who currently are still at the margins of the hate debate.