This chapter presents new evidence on the relationship between masculine norms and gender-based violence (GBV), drawing on the OECD’s research in Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal. After outlining the prevalence of GBV, the chapter empirically assesses how adherence to masculine norms shapes individuals’ likelihood of experiencing or perpetrating GBV. It then examines additional social and structural drivers that foster environments of impunity in which violence can be perpetrated repeatedly despite existing legal and institutional frameworks to fight GBV. The chapter concludes by outlining policy recommendations emphasising the need to promote positive masculinities to prevent GBV more effectively.
Masculinity and Gender Equality
Insights from Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal
Abstract
Key findings on the linkages between masculinities and gender-based violence
A paradigm shift is needed to better prevent and end GBV, given persistently high prevalence in Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal. New OECD Development Centre survey data show that around 30% of women and 20% of men in Côte d’Ivoire have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) at least once in their lifetime. In Senegal, official data indicate that 70% of women have experienced IPV since their first union. Despite methodological differences, both estimates underscore the widespread nature and significant burden of IPV. Promoting positive masculine norms should be leveraged more systematically as part of GBV prevention strategies.
Positive masculinities can reduce the likelihood of violence perpetration. Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire shows that men who endorse restrictive masculine norms are more likely to perpetrate violence, while men who hold more equitable views are less likely to do so. At the same time, these norms do not predict who experiences violence, reflecting the ubiquitous nature of GBV.
Pressure on men to fulfil social expectations can heighten the risk of their using violence, particularly where rigid masculine norms are strong. This is especially the case when men face difficulties meeting expectations linked to their role as financial provider.
Reported prevalence is likely to understate the true scale of GBV. Shame, stigma, fear of retaliation and the view that violence is a “private matter” reduce disclosure and reporting. In Senegal, for instance, 44% of the population consider domestic violence to be a private family issue.
Different forms of violence often overlap, and violence is frequently recurrent. In Côte d’Ivoire, more than two-thirds of IPV victims/survivors1 report having experienced violence several times a month or more in the past 12 months. This suggests that violence is rarely an isolated incident but often forms part of ongoing dynamics of control and abuse within relationships.
GBV also extends beyond domestic and intimate partner contexts. In Senegal, prevalence of non-IPV is particularly high, despite regional variations. Psychological and physical violence are the most common forms, while sexual abuse and harassment also remain serious concerns for women’s health and integrity.
Witnessing intimate partner violence as a child can shape attitudes and behaviour later in life. Prevention efforts should therefore start early and include family settings, as evidence shows that individuals, and particularly men, who witnessed violence as children are more likely to justify or perpetrate violence in adulthood.
Overall, the evidence points to a dual challenge: GBV remains frequent and underreported, while restrictive masculine norms and weak accountability mechanisms increase the risk of perpetration. Preventing and ending GBV therefore requires both shifting harmful norms and strengthening trusted reporting, justice and survivor support pathways.
Gender-based violence (GBV) remains widespread across countries, despite progress in legal frameworks, greater awareness and support services for survivors. The OECD’s work, particularly through the Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), has shown that discriminatory social norms continue to shape both the prevalence of violence and the effectiveness of policy responses (OECD, 2023[1]; OECD, 2023[2]). These norms are not only reflected in laws, but also in everyday expectations about the roles of women and men. This includes expectations that position men as primary decision makers, providers, or figures of authority within the household and society. Looking at masculinities from this perspective helps to explain how some of these expectations, especially those related to control over women’s choices and bodies or the acceptance of violence in certain situations, can contribute to environments where GBV is tolerated or minimised and reduce the effectiveness of prevention.
Drawing on evidence from Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal, this chapter examines how expectations placed on men shape patterns of violence perpetration and the broader social acceptance of violence. The analysis does not suggest a direct relationship between restrictive masculinities and who experiences violence. Rather, it shows how norms influence behaviour and contribute to environments in which violence is more likely to occur and less likely to be sanctioned. In these contexts, attitudes that reinforce men’s dominance over women and that justify the use of violence for discipline and conflict resolution contribute to the normalisation of abusive behaviour. In such circumstances, and particularly when violence is seen as a private matter, accountability remains limited, weakening the deterrent effect of laws and creating additional barriers for survivors seeking support or justice.
The chapter’s findings thus point to the need of strengthening prevention alongside existing support systems. Justice systems, legal protection and services for victims are essential, but they are unlikely to reduce GBV sustainably if the relevant social norms remain unchanged. Addressing expectations placed on men becomes therefore a central part of prevention as norms that associate masculinity with authority, control over women’s behaviour and bodies, or the acceptability of violence shape attitudes long before violence occurs. Shifting these expectations can reduce social acceptance of violence, influence responses to relationship conflict, and increase the likelihood that abusive behaviour is questioned or sanctioned by peers and communities. This also helps create conditions in which survivors are more likely to seek support and in which institutions are more likely to respond effectively. In line with the African Union’s agenda on ending violence against women and girls, efforts to support positive masculinities offer a practical entry point for preventing GBV by addressing its underlying drivers rather than its consequences.
Nationally representative data from Côte d’Ivoire show that GBV is widespread and follows clear gendered patterns. While both women and men report experiencing violence, women are more frequently reported as victims, whereas men are more frequently reported as perpetrators. On average, 28% of women and 19% of men report having experienced intimate-partner violence (IPV) at least once in their lifetime. Important regional variations also emerge. Among women, reported prevalence ranges from around 17% in the South-West to over 40% in the North-East and South. For men, rates vary from 12% in the Centre to just over 40% in the North-East (Figure 5.1, Panel A).
IPV takes multiple forms which often overlap. Emotional or psychological violence (e.g. threats, constant criticism, insults or controlling behaviour) is the most commonly reported form, followed by physical violence and forced sexual relations, while economic violence (e.g. acts aimed at creating financial dependence by controlling access to money, sabotaging work, or preventing employment) is less frequently reported (Figure 5.1, Panel B). The data also point to the cumulative nature of abuse: nearly half of Ivorian women (45%) who report IPV have experienced multiple forms of violence, and a large majority (64%) indicate that incidents occur repeatedly, at least once or twice per month. These patterns suggest that violence is rarely isolated and instead forms part of ongoing dynamics within relationships.
Note: Gender differences by region are statistically significant at the 1% level. Gender differences by type of IPV are statistically significant at least at the 5% level, except for economic violence.
Source: OECD (2026[3]), OECD Masculinities Database for Côte d'Ivoire, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4sy.
Information on perpetrators of violence further underscores the gendered nature of GBV. In Côte d’Ivoire, 20% of men and 15% of women report having committed some form of violence against a spouse or partner in the past 12 months. While both women and men report engaging in emotional, physical, sexual and economic violence, men do so more frequently overall, and emotional violence is the most commonly reported form for both groups (Figure 5.2). Gender gaps in IPV perpetration are relatively small in the Centre, Centre-East and South, but markedly wider in the North-East and Centre-West.
Violence occurring outside of intimate or marital relationships is also a significant concern, although less prevalent than IPV. In Côte d’Ivoire, 8% of women and men report having experienced physical and/or sexual violence by someone other than an intimate partner in the past 12 months. Sexual harassment is the most reported form, followed by physical violence and sexual abuse.2 Patterns of perpetration broadly mirror these findings: 10% of men and 5% of women report having physically hurt, sexually harassed and/or abused someone other than an intimate partner over the past 12 months. The relatively small gap between IPV and non-IPV perpetration in the Centre and in Abidjan suggests a particular need to address violence beyond the private sphere in these areas (Figure 5.2).
Share of women and men in Côte d’Ivoire declaring to have committed intimate and non-intimate partner violence over the past 12 months, national and regional levels
Note: IPV refers to intimate partner violence and non-IPV refers to acts of violence committed outside of intimate relationships.
Source: OECD (2026[3]), OECD Masculinities Database for Côte d'Ivoire, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4sy.
Available data from Senegal also point to high levels of violence against women, although the estimates are not directly comparable with those from Côte d’Ivoire or latest available SDG data because of differences in data sources, definitions and reference periods.3 In particular, the available SDG IPV estimates for Senegal from 2018 only consider sexual and/or physical violence (UN Women, n.d.[4]), whereas the more recent national estimates from 2024 include also psychological and economic violence. According to these data, 70% of women in Senegal have experienced IPV at least once since their first union, and 22% in the past 12 months (ANSD, 2024[5]). The high lifetime prevalence is driven primarily by psychological violence, reported by 61% of women, while physical, sexual and economic violence are reported at substantially lower levels, ranging from 8% to 30% (Figure 5.3). As in Côte d’Ivoire, prevalence varies substantially across regions. Rates are highest in Matam (85%), followed by Thiès, Louga, and Tambacounda (each above 70%), while Kaffrine records the lowest prevalence of IPV (49%) (ANSD, 2024[5]).
Violence outside intimate relationships is very widespread in Senegal. On average, about 90% of women report having experienced such violence over their lifetime and 22% in the past 12 months, with important regional variations ranging from 8% in Fatick to 39% in Diourbel (ANSD, 2024[5]). Psychological violence is the most commonly reported form, while economic and sexual violence are reported at much lower levels (Figure 5.3). Available data also indicate that physical violence outside intimate relationships is most often perpetrated by family members, including siblings and parents, as well as by friends (ANSD, 2024[5]). Additional evidence points to specific vulnerabilities among younger women. Most women who have experienced any form of non-IPV over their lifetime were exposed to it before the age of 18. Digital violence also appears widespread, with 20% of women below the age of 18 reporting experience of digital violence (ANSD, 2024[5]).
Forms of violence women endure over their lifetime or in the past 12 months within or outside of intimate relationships (IPV or non-IPV)
Note: IPV refers to intimate partner violence and non-IPV refers to acts of violence experienced outside of intimate relationships. Lifetime prevalence for different types of IPV is calculated since the woman’s first union.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on ANSD (2024[5]), Enquête nationale de référence sur les violences faites aux femmes.
This chapter combines different types of evidence from Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal. For Côte d’Ivoire, it draws primarily on national representative, original household survey data collected for this report, which include information on attitudes towards masculinities, experiences of violence, and self-reported perpetration (see Chapter 2). For Senegal, it relies on secondary quantitative sources together with qualitative evidence from key informant interviews and participatory discussions (see Chapter 3).
These data are complementary but not fully comparable. Differences in methodology, definitions, indicators, and reference periods mean that prevalence estimates should be interpreted with caution across countries and studies. In this chapter, the Côte d’Ivoire data are used mainly to examine patterns of violence and perpetration, while the Senegal evidence provides additional insights into social norms, reporting behaviours, and the broader context in which violence occurs. For both countries, national experts were consulted to contextualise the data results.
Across both Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal, the available evidence points to high levels of violence against women, within and outside intimate relationships, while also highlighting important differences in how such violence is experienced and reported. Prevalence rates should, however, be interpreted with caution across countries, as they are shaped by differences in data sources, definitions, and reporting contexts. Similar caution is needed when examining regional variations in perpetration rates, since self-reported data are sensitive to social desirability bias, differences in how violent behaviours are understood, and the aggregation of diverse forms of violence. These factors may influence both reporting patterns and the comparability of findings across settings.
To understand the full scale of GBV, it is necessary to look beyond prevalence alone and consider how social and institutional factors influence whether violence is recognised, disclosed and addressed. In both Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal, a range of social and institutional factors limits reporting and obscures the full magnitude of gender-based violence. Shame, stigma, fear of retaliation, social pressure to remain silent, and limited trust in public authorities all shape whether victims seek support or turn to formal complaint mechanisms (OECD, 2023[2]). Available data are therefore likely to underestimate the prevalence of violence, particularly where certain forms of abuse are normalised or treated as private matters.
Evidence from Senegal illustrates these dynamics clearly. Afrobarometer data show that 46% of the population believe that women would likely be criticised or harassed if they reported experiences of GBV, while 44% consider domestic violence to be a private matter that should be resolved within the family (Afrobarometer, 2022[6]). Data from a 2023 survey supports this, finding that most survivors do neither seek medical assistance, psychological support or alert the policy (Tine et al., 2026[7]). Qualitative evidence points in the same direction, highlighting shame, concerns about preserving family honour, and limited knowledge of legal rights as important barriers to disclosing and reporting violence to appropriate authorities (OECD, 2026[8]). These findings help explain why reported prevalence may not fully reflect the scale of violence, or specific types of violence, even in a context where available survey data already point to high levels of abuse.
Comparable patterns are observed in Côte d’Ivoire. Afrobarometer data indicate that the main perceived reasons for not reporting violence are a preference for amicable settlement (34%), fear of retaliation in case of reporting (26%), shame (17%), lack of knowledge of legal rights or procedures (11%), and social pressure to remain silent (11%). In addition, only 17% of the population think that victims will likely file a complaint with the relevant institutions (Afrobarometer, 2024[9]). Differences between reported prevalence and public perceptions further suggest that some forms of violence are more widely recognised than they are formally reported. For example, 26% of the population believe that women are often or always harassed in public places, while 38% think that girls and young women often or always face discrimination or harassment in educational settings. Yet, on average, only 6% of women in Côte d’Ivoire declare having experienced from sexual harassment (OECD, 2026[3]).
Beyond reporting, social norms also shape the degree to which violence is tolerated or justified. In Côte d’Ivoire, 30% of both women and men agree that a man has the right to hit or physically hurt his wife under at least one circumstance – i.e. when she burns the food, argues with him, does not take good care of the children, goes out without his permission or refuses to have sex with him (OECD, 2026[3]). In Senegal, 21% of women and 14% of men agree with such a statement, revealing important gender gaps in attitudes compared to more homogenous views in Côte d’Ivoire (ANSD; The DHS Program, 2023[10]). This pattern of more women than men justifying men’s use of violence holds for most circumstances in Senegal, except for arguing or going out without the husband’s permission for which the gender gap in attitudes is reversed. Conversely, in Côte d’Ivoire, men’s and women’s views are closely aligned for any situation. Refusal of sex is the most accepted justification for men’s use of violence in Senegal contrarily to Côte d’Ivoire where this is the least frequently selected case after burning the food (Panel A, Figure 5.4). A perception survey conducted among Senegalese youth also finds that sexual violence within intimate relationships is largely accepted in contrast to abuse occurring outside of such relationships (van Tuijl et al., 2025[11]).
Acceptance of physical IPV also varies across regions, suggesting that violence is embedded in local normative environments and that the social tolerance of abuse is stronger in some settings than in others. For instance, in Côte d’Ivoire regional rates range from just over 15% in the South to around 40% in the North-East and North (Panel B, Figure 5.4). In Senegal, the share of women justifying men’s use of violence at least under one circumstance varies from 55% in Fatick to 90% in Ziguinchor (ANSD; The DHS Program, 2023[10]). Such attitudes matter because they shape not only whether violence is perpetrated, but also whether it is reported, condemned and sanctioned.4 Where violence is seen as normal, justified or best handled within the family, survivors face greater barriers to seeking support and perpetrators are less likely to face social or institutional consequences. The same norms that limit the visibility of violence can also shape the behaviours through which violence is committed.
Note: Panel A indicates the share of the population (total, women, men) in Senegal (SEN) and Côte d’Ivoire (CIV) agreeing that a man has the right to beat, slap, kick or physically hurt his wife or partner if she burns the food; argues with him; goes out without telling him or asking for his permission; does not take good care of their children; or refuses to have sexual relations with him. Panel B indicates the share of the population (total, women, men) in Côte d’Ivoire by region who agree that a man can physically hurt his wife or partner at least under one of the circumstances mentioned for Panel A.
Source: OECD (2026[3]), OECD Masculinities Database for Côte d'Ivoire, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4sy; ANSD (2023[10]), Enquête Démographique et de Santé continue 2023.
The evidence from Côte d’Ivoire shows that restrictive masculinities help understand patterns of violence perpetration rather than victimisation. This does not imply that all men who endorse such norms perpetrate violence, nor that violence is committed only by men. Rather, it suggests that adherence to norms emphasising male authority, control over women and rigid gender roles can increase the likelihood of violent behaviour in some circumstances.
Existing literature often suggests that women who internalise norms emphasising male authority and female subordination may be more vulnerable to violence, as such norms can normalise unequal power relations and reduce women’s ability to recognise, resist or report abuse (Bernard, Bernard and Bernard, 1985[12]). The findings presented here, however, do not show a statistically significant relationship between women’s overall endorsement of restrictive masculinities and their likelihood of experiencing IPV. This does not mean that masculine norms are irrelevant to women’s experiences of violence. Rather, it suggests that victimisation is shaped by a broader set of interacting factors and cannot be explained by women’s attitudes towards masculinity alone. This is in line with ecological approaches conceptualising violence as a multifaceted phenomenon, emphasising the role of individual, relational, community and structural determinants (Heise, 1998[13]).
Other socio-demographic factors offer more insight into who may be at greater risk of experiencing violence. In Côte d’Ivoire, women who are employed and women who live in rural areas report higher rates of IPV, while women with higher levels of education are less likely to have experienced such violence (OECD, 2026[3]). In Senegal, a study found that women working in the informal sector are more likely than those in the public sector to experience physical violence (Tine et al., 2026[7]). These patterns point to the importance of structural and relational dynamics beyond individual beliefs. For example, resource theory suggests that shifts in women’s economic position may challenge established power relations within couples, potentially triggering violent reactions among men to reassert control; particularly in contexts where norms around male authority remain strong (Macmillan and Gartner, 1999[14]). Rural residence may also be associated with greater acceptance of discriminatory norms and more limited access to legal protection and support services. By contrast, education can strengthen awareness of (legal) rights, increase autonomy, and improve access to information and support systems (Weitzman, 2018[15]).
A different picture emerges when looking at perpetration of violence. Among men, endorsement of restrictive masculinities is significantly associated with a higher likelihood of perpetrating violence against a wife or intimate partner, not only once but also repeatedly. This is also the case for violence committed outside the context of intimate relationships. Conversely, men who hold less restrictive views of masculinity are less likely to use violence against women.5 The data further confirm that the relationship between restrictive masculinities and violence perpetration holds across most dimensions of the OECD Masculinities Index, except for final decision-making power, where very little variation in people’s responses prevent obtaining a statistically significant result.6 Understanding how restrictive masculinities operate is thus crucial to understand who is more likely to commit GBV rather than predicting who experiences it.
The analysis also sheds light on the mechanisms through which restrictive masculinities may translate into violent behaviour. Men who strongly endorse expectations around authority, provision and sexual performance may feel pressure to demonstrate that they fulfil these roles. When these expectations are difficult to meet, some men may use violence as a way to reassert control or restore a sense of masculine identity. This is consistent with the concept of masculine gender-role stress, whereby perceived failure to meet socially valued standards of masculinity can generate frustration, shame or insecurity (Copenhaver, 2000[16]). It also aligns with research showing that threats to masculinity can increase the likelihood of controlling or violent behaviour where dominance is central to masculine identity (Fleming et al., 2019[17]).
This pattern is particularly visible in relation to men’s economic role. In Côte d’Ivoire, men who report that they would feel stressed if unable to provide for their family are more likely to perpetrate IPV, particularly over the previous 12 months.7 Men who say they would feel ashamed if they earned less than their wife are also more likely to report lifetime and repeated perpetration of IPV. Looking specifically at the breadwinner norm points in the same direction: men’s stronger endorsement of the view that they should provide for their family is associated with a higher likelihood of men committing IPV. This finding should, however, be interpreted with caution, given the limited variation in men’s responses regarding support for the breadwinner norm.8
Pressure linked to expectations about intimate relationships also matters. Men who agree that they should feel embarrassed if they do not perform well sexually, and simultaneously endorse restrictive masculine norms, are more likely to perpetrate IPV.9 Compared with financial stress, which appears to be more closely associated with recent perpetration of violence, pressure related to sexual performance seems to operate over a longer time horizon, as it is associated both with men committing violence in the previous 12 months but also across lifetime. This pattern suggests the interplay between economic pressures and violence are more short-term and context-specific (e.g. linked to unemployment or periods of economic insecurity), whereas expectations about men’s sexuality are likely to be less sensitive to external conditions and can thus trigger violent behaviour across a larger time frame.
Overall, the findings from Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal are consistent with a growing body of research and carry important policy implications. Promoting positive forms of masculinity can reduce violence, shift attitudes about violence, and foster more gender-egalitarian attitudes (Pérez-Martínez et al., 2023[18]).
Restrictive masculinities are one important part of the broader set of factors shaping GBV, but they do not operate in isolation. Violence is also sustained by early exposure to abusive behaviour, a general normalisation of men’s use of force, and weak institutional environments. Understanding this wider constellation of drivers is crucial given the persistence of GBV in Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal. The need for a broader rethinking of responses to GBV was also reflected in qualitative interviews in Senegal, given that despite sustained human and financial investments over several years, GBV prevalence remains alarmingly high (OECD, 2026[8]).
Childhood experiences are part of this wider picture, and evidence calls for violence prevention efforts to start at early ages. Data from Côte d’Ivoire indicates a significant association between witnessing IPV during childhood and later attitudes or behaviours related to perpetrating, justifying or experiencing such violence.10 This relationship appears stronger for men than for women, suggesting that early exposure may play a more important role in shaping men’s compared to women’s likelihood of condoning or using violence in adulthood.11 On average, 18% of the Ivorian population report having witnessed their mother being beaten by her husband or partner, and 32% saw their mother being verbally abused or humiliated as children (OECD, 2026[3]). These findings are in line with the existing research showing that witnessing violence at young ages can not only shape individuals’ perceptions on violence but are associated with perpetration and to a lesser extent victimisation (Wadji, Pirro and Langevin, 2024[19]; Zhu et al., 2023[20]; Curtis et al., 2022[21]; Kimber et al., 2018[22]).
The broader social acceptance of male authority and use of violence further contributes to an environment in which abuse can repeatedly occur with limited consequences for perpetrators. For instance, in Côte d’Ivoire, 54% of men and 45% of women agree that women cannot refuse to have sex with their husband or partner (OECD, 2026[3]). Such attitudes reflect acceptance of male dominance over women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy and can create conditions in which coercion and violence are more likely to occur (Decker et al., 2021[23]; Katz et al., 2015[24]). In addition, overall acceptance of men’s use of violence to solve conflicts or discipline their wives contribute to the persistence of GBV. In Côte d’Ivoire, 14% of the population agree that it is normal for a man to use violence or physical force to resolve conflict or assert his authority, and analysis shows that men who normalise the use of violence in such contexts are more likely to perpetrate IPV (OECD, 2026[3]).12 In Senegal, one third of the population agrees that a man can use physical force to discipline his wife if she did something he dislikes or thinks is wrong (Afrobarometer, 2022[6]). These views are shared also among Senegalese youth considering IPV as a common reaction given men’s perceived right to marital sexual relations (van Tuijl et al., 2025[11]).
The persistence of violence is also visible in its frequency, fuelled by harmful social norms and weak institutional support and redress systems. Among women who report having experienced IPV in Côte d’Ivoire, around two-thirds indicate that such violence occurred at least a few times per month, or even more often, in the previous 12 months.13 Perpetrators thus face limited consequences for their behaviour and can repeatedly commit violence, despite recent legal reforms to define and criminalise domestic violence and strengthen support for survivors (Government of Côte d'Ivoire, 2021[25]; Government of Côte d'Ivoire, 2021[26]).14 Stricter enforcement of existing laws and ensuring access to support systems appears to be key in breaking this cycle of offender impunity and repeated acts of violence. Notably, over half of the Ivorian population (53%) believes that the police should do more to protect women and girls from harassment in educational, workplace or public settings (Afrobarometer, 2024[9]).
Evidence from Senegal points to similar constraints and demands for concerted efforts to fight GBV. Almost three quarters (73%) of the population believe that the government should do more to promote women’s rights (Afrobarometer, 2022[6]). While a similar share (76%) thinks that the police would take a woman who reports a rape or incident of domestic violence seriously (Afrobarometer, 2022[6]), qualitative interviews reveal that social pressure remains high, discouraging victims from officially reporting GBV incidents and seeking justice or support within public institutions (see above). The interviews further show that economic constraints and limited awareness of which forms of violent behaviour constitute a violation of rights limit the ability to seek justice or access support services (OECD, 2026[8]). These barriers reinforce the gap between the government’s legal commitments and individuals’ lived realities.
The available evidence therefore suggests that violence persists not only because harmful norms shape behaviour, but also because violence is too often tolerated, repeated and insufficiently sanctioned. This has important policy implications. A mix of measures is needed to prevent GBV incidents and enhance justice and support for victims. In addition to comprehensive legal frameworks, stronger accountability, and institutions that survivors trust and can access are needed. It also requires investing in prevention from an early age, challenging norms that legitimise men’s authority and use of violence, strengthening the capacity of justice and service providers (including shelters, medical and psychological support, legal assistance etc.), and ensuring that female and male survivors can access timely and effective support.
The evidence from Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal shows that GBV remains widespread and takes multiple forms, both within and beyond intimate relationships. At the same time, prevalence data do not capture the full scale of the problem. Shame, social pressure, fear of retaliation, and the perception that violence is a private matter continue to discourage reporting and obscure the full scale of GBV.
The findings also suggest that masculine norms help explain patterns of perpetration more clearly than patterns of victimisation. In particular, stronger endorsement of restrictive masculinities is associated with a higher likelihood of committing violence especially where masculinity is closely tied to dominance, control, and sexual entitlement. For instance, the legitimisation or normalisation of men’s use of violence to solve conflicts or discipline their wives/intimate partners is associated with greater risk of perpetration.
These findings have clear policy implications. Positioning positive masculinities at the centre of GBV prevention can help address the normative environments where violence is tolerated and rarely reported, condemned or sanctioned. Although legal and service‑based responses are essential, they are unlikely to deliver lasting reductions in violence without parallel changes in the gender norms that legitimise male authority and use of violence. Preventing GBV therefore requires greater attention to the expectations placed on men and boys, including norms around decision making, conflict resolution, economic roles and sexual relations. Addressing these norms should start at early ages and be understood as part of a broader prevention agenda, not as a substitute for legal and institutional responses.
At the same time, stronger implementation and institutional accountability are indispensable. The evidence points to persistent barriers to reporting, limited trust in public institutions and weak deterrence for perpetrators. Strengthening the capacity of police, justice actors and service providers to respond effectively to GBV is therefore critical, alongside efforts to improve awareness of rights, reporting pathways and access to survivor-centred support. Taken together, these findings suggest that effective action on GBV requires both prevention and response: prevention that addresses restrictive masculinities and social acceptance of violence, and response systems that are trusted, accessible and capable of delivering protection and justice.
Moving forward: Policy priorities
Drawing on the analysis and on recommendations from Ivorian and Senegalese experts, the following policy actions should be prioritised to strengthen GBV prevention and response. States should also ratify and implement the African Union Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls, adopted in February 2025, which provides a continent-wide framework for prevention, protection, accountability, and support to survivors (African Union, 2025[27]).
Promote positive masculinities and transform harmful social norms through community-based programmes for men and boys, including fatherhood mentoring initiatives and national communication campaigns using diverse media such as local radio, television and digital platforms (see Chapters 1, 2 and 3 for more details). Programmes should engage men and boys as active agents of change, while keeping women’s rights and survivor safety at the centre.
Integrate GBV prevention and gender equality into education systems by embedding these issues in school curricula from an early age, including modules on respectful relationships, non-violent conflict resolution and shared responsibilities. These efforts should be accompanied by targeted teacher training and measures to support children’s enrolment, retention and completion of schooling.
Strengthen the legal and institutional response to GBV by revising, harmonising and enforcing legislation, introducing more effective sanctions, and establishing specialised GBV units within police stations, courts and local administrations. Community-based mechanisms, including councils of elders, traditional and religious leaders, and local accountability structures, can complement these efforts by supporting prevention, referral and accountability, while helping reinforce the implementation of statutory law.
Expand survivor-centred response and protection systems by improving referral pathways, alert networks, protection mechanisms, emergency support funds, and access to comprehensive legal, psychosocial, and social support services.
Build the capacity and accountability of frontline actors, including service providers, justice actors, security forces, and media professionals, to ensure rights-based, gender-sensitive and effective prevention and response to GBV.
These priorities point to the need for a more integrated approach that combines norm change, institutional accountability, and survivor-centred support.
References
[27] African Union (2025), African Union Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls, https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/44174-wd-EN_AU_Convention_on_Ending_Violence_Against_Women_and_Girls_CEVAWG_27.05.2025.pdf.
[9] Afrobarometer (2024), Côte d’Ivoire Round 10 data (2024), https://www.afrobarometer.org/survey-resource/cote-divoire-round-10-data-2024/ (accessed on 26 February 2026).
[6] Afrobarometer (2022), Senegal Round 9 data (2022).
[5] ANSD (2024), Enquête nationale de référence sur les violences faites aux femmes (ENR-VFFS, 2023), https://www.ansd.sn/sites/default/files/2024-11/Brochure_ENR-VFFS_0.pdf.
[10] ANSD; The DHS Program (2023), Sénégal : Enquête Démographique et de Santé Continue (EDS Continue), https://dhsprogram.com/Countries/Country-Main.cfm?ctry_id=36&c=Senegal&Country=Senegal&cn=&r=1.
[12] Bernard, J., S. Bernard and M. Bernard (1985), “Courtship Violence and Sex-Typing”, Family Relations, Vol. 34, pp. 573–76, https://doi.org/10.2307/584021.
[16] Copenhaver, M. (2000), “Masculine Gender-Role Stress, Anger, and Male Intimate Abusiveness: Implications for Men’s Relationships”, Sex Roles, pp. 405-414, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007050305387.
[21] Curtis, A. et al. (2022), “Childhood Predictors of Adult Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration and Victimization”, Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 38/8, pp. 1591-1606, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00451-0.
[23] Dalby, A. (ed.) (2021), “Gendered power dynamics and threats to sexual and reproductive autonomy among adolescent girls and young adult women: A cross-sectional survey in three urban settings”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 16/11, p. e0257009, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257009.
[17] Fleming, P. et al. (2019), “Competition and Humiliation: How Masculine Norms Shape Men’s Sexual and Violent Behaviors”, Men and Masculinities, pp. 197-215, https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17715493.
[26] Government of Côte d’Ivoire (2021), Loi n° 2021-894 du 21 décembre 2021 relative aux mesures de protection des victimes de violences domestiques.
[25] Government of Côte d’Ivoire (2021), Loi n°2021-893 du 21 décembre 2021 modifiant la loi n°2019-574 du 26 juin 2019 portant code pénal.
[13] Heise, L. (1998), “Violence Against Women: An Integrated, Ecological Framework: An Integrated, Ecological Framework”, Violence Against Women, pp. 262-290, https://doi.org/10.1177/107780129800400300.
[24] Katz, J. et al. (2015), “Reproductive Coercion by Male Sexual Partners: Associations With Partner Violence and College Women’s Sexual Health”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 32/21, pp. 3301-3320, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515597441.
[22] Kimber, M. et al. (2018), “The association between child exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) and perpetration of IPV in adulthood—A systematic review”, Child abuse & neglect, Vol. 76, pp. p. 273-286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.007.
[14] Macmillan, R. and R. Gartner (1999), “When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force participation and the risk of spousal violence against women”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, pp. 947-958.
[3] OECD (2026), OECD Masculinities Database for Côte d’Ivoire, Nationally representative househould survey on masculine norms conducted by the OECD and ANStat, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4sy.
[8] OECD (2026), Qualitative evidence on masculine norms in Senegal, Key informant interviews and participatory workshop facilitated by the OECD and the Department for Gender Equity and Equality, Ministry of Family, Social Action and Solidarity in Senegal.
[2] OECD (2023), Breaking the Cycle of Gender-based Violence: Translating Evidence into Action for Victim/Survivor-centred Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b133e75c-en.
[1] OECD (2023), SIGI 2023 Global Report: Gender Equality in Times of Crisis, Social Institutions and Gender Index, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4607b7c7-en.
[7] Orri, M. (ed.) (2026), “Epidemiology of violence and suicide risk in Senegal: A nationwide survey in 2023”, PLOS Global Public Health, Vol. 6/1, p. e0005782, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005782.
[18] Pérez-Martínez, V. et al. (2023), “Positive Masculinities and Gender-Based Violence Educational Interventions Among Young People: A Systematic Review”, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, pp. 468-486, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838021103024.
[4] UN Women (n.d.), Senegal Country Profile, https://data.unwomen.org/country/senegal (accessed on 5 June 2026).
[11] van Tuijl, C. et al. (2025), “Perceptions of sexual violence among adolescents and youth in Senegal and Ghana: Insights into normalization, victim-blaming and prospective behavior”, Global Public Health, Vol. 20/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2025.2588852.
[19] Wadji, D., T. Pirro and R. Langevin (2024), “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Association between Childhood Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization/Perpetration in Adulthood in Africa”, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Vol. 26/4, pp. 634-650, https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241287144.
[15] Weitzman, A. (2018), “Does increasing women’s education reduce their risk of intimate partner violence? Evidence from an education policy reform”, Criminology, Vol. 56/3, pp. 574-607, https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12181.
[20] Zhu, J. et al. (2023), “Adverse childhood experiences and intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 36/2, pp. 929-943, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579423000196.
← 1. Going forward, this chapter uses the term survivors to refer to victims/survivors of GBV.
← 2. The prevalence rates of non-IPV are: 6% for women and 5% for men for sexual harassment; 2% for women and 3% for men for physical violence; and 1% for women and 2% for men for sexual abuse/rape.
← 3. The ANSD data is the most recent nationally representative data available for Senegal, drawing on a sample of 7503 women. Available IPV prevalence rates reported by the World Health Organisation or the United Nations are lower – however they only account for sexual and/or physical violence. The data collected by ANSD also includes economic and psychological violence, the latter notably explaining the high rate of 70%. IPV prevalence rates reported in other recent studies (e.g. (Tine et al., 2026[7])) are not fully coherent with the ANSD data. These differences can be explained by various factors, including differences in sample size and design, the types of violence measured, the way questions were phrased in respective surveys and varying levels of disclosure of violence by survey participants.
← 4. Studies have shown that beliefs which normalise or justify the use of violence are associated with higher prevalence rates of violence (OECD, 2023[1]). Data from Côte d’Ivoire collected for this report show that women’s likelihood of experiencing IPV throughout their lifetime increases with the number of cases under which they justify men’s use of violence. The correlation coefficient between IPV prevalence over lifetime for women and justification of male’s use of violence by number of circumstances is 0.13 and is significant at the 5% level.
← 5. The results are based on logit models estimated on the ever-married men’s subsample with perpetration of IPV and non-IPV as dependent variables of interest. The reversed OECD Masculinities Index is used as the main explanatory variable of interest (a higher score is associated with lower restrictive views of masculinity). The control variables include age, level of education, income, religion status, having biological children, residence area, and employment status. The models also account for zone fixed effects.
← 6. This result is based on ten logit models estimated using the subsample of ever-married men. The dependent variable, violence perpetration, is coded as 1 if a man has ever committed intimate partner violence (IPV) during his lifetime, and 0 otherwise. Across the ten estimations, the key explanatory variable is one dimension of the OECD Masculinities Index, measured as a continuous aggregate score ranging from 0 to 100. Each model includes a different dimension of the index, such as the breadwinner norm, financial dominance, or control over assets (see Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the ten dimensions). Control variables include age, education level, income, religious status, having biological children, area of residence, and employment status. All models additionally account for zone fixed effects.
← 7. This result is based on a logit model estimated on the ever-married men’s subsample. The dependent variable is equal to 1 if a man has ever committed IPV during his lifetime, and 0 otherwise. The variable of interest is an interaction between the OECD Masculinities Index and an indicator equal to 1 if the respondent reports feeling stressed or anxious if he could not provide for his family, and 0 otherwise. The control variables include age, level of education, income, religion status, having biological children, residence area, and employment status. The model also accounts for zone fixed effects. When the estimates are disaggregated by type of violence, men with more restrictive masculinities who experience anxiety and stress are also more likely to perpetrate physical and economic IPV over their lifetime.
← 8. This result is based on a logit model estimated on the ever-married men’s subsample. The dependent variable is equal to 1 if a man has ever committed IPV during his lifetime, and 0 otherwise. The variable of interest is the breadwinner norm, measured as an aggregate continuous score ranging from 0 to 100. It represents the average level of agreement with the following statements: “I think the most important role for a man is to provide financially for his family” and “When jobs are scarce, I think employers should give priority to hiring men.” The control variables include age, level of education, income, religion status, having biological children, residence area, and employment status. The model also accounts for zone fixed effects. Despite the limited variation in the data, given that almost everyone agrees with the statement, estimates still reveal a statistically significant relationship with IPV perpetration.
← 9. Similarly to the main specification model, the results are based on a logit model estimated on the ever-married men’s subsample. However, the OECD Masculinities Index is replaced by a variable equal to 1 if the respondent believes that a man should feel embarrassed if he fails to perform well during sex, and 0 otherwise. The control variables include age, level of education, income, religion status, having biological children, residence area, and employment status. The model also accounts for zone fixed effects.
← 10. Correlations between an aggregate measure of having witnessed IPV as a child (combining physical and emotional violence) and lifetime IPV experience, perpetuation as well as justifying men’s use of physical violence towards their wife/partner are significant at the 1% level. The correlation coefficients are 0.10, 0.13, and 0.13, respectively, indicating a positive but rather weak relationship.
← 11. The correlation coefficients for witnessing IPV as a child and lifetime IPV perpetration are 0.09 for women and 0.17 for men. The correlation coefficients for witnessing IPV as a child and justification of men’s use of physical violence towards their wife/partner are 0.11 for women and 0.15 for men.
← 12. The results are based on a logit model estimated on the ever-married men’s subsample. The dependent variable is equal to 1 if a man has ever committed IPV during his lifetime, and 0 otherwise. The interest variable in an aggregate of all the cases in which violence is normalised, including when the woman burns food, goes out with the husband’s permission or without asking him, does not take good care of the children, argues with her husband, or refuses to have sex with him. The aggregate measure equals to 1 if violence is normalised in at least one of the cases, and 0 otherwise. The control variables include age, level of education, income, religion status, having biological children, residence area, and employment status. The model also accounts for zone fixed effects. The observed result also holds for physical, economic, and sexual IPV during lifetime.
← 13. In Côte d’Ivoire, frequent experience of violence persists across all types of abuse with over 70% of women victims/survivors having endured emotional violence few times per month or more often, followed by about 60% and 57% for sexual and economic violence, respectively, and 47% for physical violence. These values exclude respondents who did not want to answer how frequently they have experienced these forms of violence, but who have experienced it at least once during their lifetime.
← 14. In 2021, the Ivorian Penal Code was amended by Law No. 2021-893, criminalising domestic violence and introducing the need for sexual consent, as well as mandating protection measures for victims/survivors of domestic violence through Law No. 2021-894. Despite these important changes, the law does not cover all types of domestic abuse: sexual violence is not criminalised.