How does the economy contribute to violence against women?

What factors of the economy increase violence against women in domestic relationships? Especially for immigrant women who are dependent upon their partners for financial support?

It is important to bear in mind here that money is nothing but a battlefield for marital disputes and that the root cause is divergent perspectives of whether to save/spend or what to spend money on first, second, etc. Exempli gratia, I was talking with the Maintenance Vice President of the local transit company about why 45-foot and 60-foot transit vehicles should take the place of the 40-foot vehicles already in the fleet. My rationale for the 45-foot and 60-foot transit vehicles is to be able to transport more people within a single vehicle and for those passengers to have more elbow and leg room while the Maintenance VP's perspective revolves around the higher per capita purchase price and operating costs for these vehicles as well as the difficulty of storing and maintaining them. The Maintenance VP and I both want the transit company to thrive and flourish; while his perspective of the method to bring that about is different from mine, that DOES NOT necessarily mean that one perspective is of greater merit than the other. The two divergent perspectives are merely two sides of the same coin.

The same goes for finance-driven marital disputes. It is not about money; it is about the priorities of the paramours and depends on how willing the paramours are in accommodating each other's perspectives. Domestic violence is when only one paramour (usually the female) is willing to do the necessary work of accommodating the opposing perspective. Unfortunately, the economic mechanics are still somewhat tuned for male breadwinners and this is wielded to the woman's detriment both at the workplace and at home. In the workplace, the prevailing perspective is that women usually have a male paramour who does the bulk of the economic heavy lifting and thus have only supplemental motives for working or are doing it because they want to, hence their lower compensation. The diminished compensation means a diminished micro-economy and a diminished micro-economy is easier to crush, hence economic subjugation if the male paramour so chooses. Making matters worse, women are hired harder and fired more easily due to the sentiment that they are more emotional than men even as they are charged the prosecution of gestation and parturition (not exactly convenient or painless!!!). Even if they have the cerebral configuration for it, women sometimes damage their micro-economies by not negotiating effectively to get the most bang for the buck. All the male chauvinist economic mechanics that are being phased out (a little more slowly than they really should in the Occident!!!) contribute to the computation that subjugation to a man is more economical than going it alone even if physical/psychological maltreatment comes with the territory.

Perhaps poor laws and poor enforcement of laws rather than poor economy contribute to violence against women.

When the law is either absent, or unclear, or unfair. Then people are more likely to take the law into their own hands and resolve their disagreements through violence rather than through the courts.

In years of study of economics, I have never come across a study which suggests a correlation between domestic violence and an economic variable. It might be out there, but I've never heard of such a thing.