IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v11y2021i3p112-d637258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Economic Consequences of Decriminalizing Sex Work in Washington, DC—A Conceptual Model

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda Srsic

    (Independent Public Health Consultant, Raleigh, NC 27615, USA)

  • Katarzyna Dubas-Jakóbczyk

    (Health Economic and Social Security Department, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-066 Krakow, Poland)

  • Ewa Kocot

    (Health Economic and Social Security Department, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-066 Krakow, Poland)

Abstract

(1) Under repressive policies, sex workers are at disproportionate risk for violence and sexually transmitted infections. The decriminalization of sex work provides increased social and health benefits to both sex workers and society. This is the first research that complements human rights-based messages with a quantifiable economic impact of such a law and a model for future calculations. (2) This research assesses the potential economic consequences of decriminalizing sex work in the District of Columbia (DC) in three areas: (A) income tax revenue, (B) criminal justice system savings, and (C) health sector savings (due to averted cases of violence, HIV, gonorrhea, and herpes). (3) An economic model is developed and utilized based on data from a literature search and agency records. (4) Decriminalizing sex work in DC will generate USD5348.68 per sex worker and USD2.53 per client annually, plus USD20,118.48 in criminal justice system savings a year. Per sex worker, USD5058.08 will be gained from income tax revenue, and USD290.60 will be generated through health sector savings (USD274.65, 0.02, 15.64, and 0.29 from averted cases of violence, HIV, gonorrhea, and herpes, respectively). Per client, decriminalization will generate USD0.05, 2.32, and 0.16 from averted cases of HIV, gonorrhea, and herpes, respectively, or USD8462.35 annually, after considering the total number of clients. Estimates are reported in 2020 USD. (5) The potential economic impact of decriminalizing sex work is widespread. The presented model, in conjunction with a rights-based foundation, should urgently be used by advocates, sex workers, decision makers, and other researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda Srsic & Katarzyna Dubas-Jakóbczyk & Ewa Kocot, 2021. "The Economic Consequences of Decriminalizing Sex Work in Washington, DC—A Conceptual Model," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:112-:d:637258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/11/3/112/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/11/3/112/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pinkerton, Steven D. & Abramson, Paul R., 1997. "Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1303-1312, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sabina S Alistar & Douglas K Owens & Margaret L Brandeau, 2014. "Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Oral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in a Portfolio of Prevention Programs for Injection Drug Users in Mixed HIV Epidemics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Stephanie Earnshaw & Katherine Hicks & Anke Richter & Amanda Honeycutt, 2007. "A linear programming model for allocating HIV prevention funds with state agencies: a pilot study," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 239-252, September.
    3. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner, 2010. "Social Change: The Sexual Revolution," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(4), pages 893-923, November.
    4. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner, 2006. "Social Change," 2006 Meeting Papers 79, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    5. Masunga K. Iseselo & Edith A. M. Tarimo & Eric Sandstrom & Asli Kulane, 2020. "Sexual Behaviours and Practices before and after Phase I/II HIV Vaccine Trial: A Qualitative Study among Volunteers in Dar es Salaam Tanzania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Francis, Andrew M., 2008. "The economics of sexuality: The effect of HIV/AIDS on homosexual behavior in the United States," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 675-689, May.
    7. Danni Xia & Yingjie Chen & Ruijie Chang & Chen Xu & Xiaoyue Yu & Yujie Liu & Hui Chen & Rongxi Wang & Shangbin Liu & Xin Ge & Yuxuan Wang & Ajuan Liang & Fan Hu & Yong Cai & Ying Wang, 2022. "Psychosocial Problems and Condomless Anal Sex among Transgender Women in Two Cities of China: Study Based on the Syndemic Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Judith Lammers & Sweder van Wijnbergen & Daan Willebrands, 2011. "Gender Differences, HIV Risk Perception and Condom Use," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-051/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Rosie L Latimer & Lenka A Vodstrcil & Christopher K Fairley & Vincent J Cornelisse & Eric P F Chow & Tim R H Read & Catriona S Bradshaw, 2018. "Non-consensual condom removal, reported by patients at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Steven D. Pinkerton & David R. Holtgrave & Laura C. Leviton & David A. Wagstaff & Paul R. Abramson, 1998. "Model-Based Evaluation of Hiv Prevention Interventions," Evaluation Review, , vol. 22(2), pages 155-174, April.
    11. Ana P. Johnson-Masotti & Purushottam W. Laud & Raymond G. Hoffmann & Matthew J. Hayat & Steven D. Pinkerton, 2001. "Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HIV Prevention," Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(4), pages 474-502, August.
    12. Bimala Sharma & Eun Woo Nam, 2018. "Condom Use at Last Sexual Intercourse and Its Correlates among Males and Females Aged 15–49 Years in Nepal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Fern Terris‐Prestholt & Matthew Quaife & Peter Vickerman, 2016. "Parameterising User Uptake in Economic Evaluations: The role of discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 116-123, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:112-:d:637258. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.