Corporal Punishment Bans and Change over Time in Corporal Punishment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Background and Purpose: A common form of violence against children is corporal punishment—the use of pain to discipline or punish. Research suggests corporal punishment is harmful for children’s health and development. There is also a global consensus among governments that corporal punishment should be prevented (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). One approach to prevent corporal punishment is to legally ban corporal punishment in all settings, including the home. Currently, corporal punishment is banned in 65 countries, approximately half of which are low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Yet, most research on the effects of bans focuses on high-income countries in Europe. The purpose of this study is to advance our understanding of the outcomes of corporal punishment bans in LMICs.

Methods: The dependent variables are drawn from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). MICS and DHS are nationally representative household surveys administered in LMICs. Data about corporal punishment are available in 4 survey rounds between 2005 and 2020. Caregivers are asked whether anyone in the household disciplined a focal child in several ways in the past month (yes/no) via a modified version of the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale. Using country-specific weights, the national prevalence of 3 outcomes is computed at each round: (1) “moderate” corporal punishment: whether there was shaking, spanking, hitting with object, or slapping (other than head), (2) a “severe” item: hit head/face, and (3) another “severe” item: beating. For the present study, the age of the focal child is restricted to 5-14 years old for consistency across rounds. The independent variable is whether a ban occurred before a survey wave (Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children, 2022). The unit of analysis is country-round and data are analyzed using difference-in-differences models that are robust to the staggered timing of bans (de Chaisemartin and D’Haultfœuille, 2020). There are 9 countries that banned corporal punishment and had pre-post data. Comparison countries (n = 13) are selected using propensity score matching based on country characteristics such as the Human Development Index and geographic region.

Results: Bans were associated with a 5.5 percentage point increase in the prevalence of moderate corporal punishment (95% CI: -1.2, 12.2), which translates to a 10% increase, though this estimate was not statistically significant. In contrast, there was no meaningful change in hitting the face/head (point estimate: 0.06 percentage point increase; 95% CI: -3.8, 4.0). Finally, bans were associated with 0.5 percentage point decrease in beating (95% CI: -1.8, 0.9) which translates to a 25% reduction, though this was not statistically significant.

Conclusions and Implications: While there is uncertainty around these estimates, among the LMICs included in this study, there is some evidence that, on average, after a ban, moderate corporal punishment may have increased and beating may have decreased. LMICs that ban corporal punishment may experience meaningful reductions in beating (i.e., physical abuse). At the same time, LMICs should aim to support parents in order to prevent an increase in moderate corporal punishment.