The aim of the article is to examine if and how the welfare state regime typology translates into a violence regime typology in a European context. It builds on the concept of violence regimes (Strid et al. 2017; Hearn et al. 2020) to empirically examine whether the production of interpersonal violence constitutes distinct regimes, and how these correspond (or not) with welfare regimes, gender regimes, and with other comparative metrics on violence, gender equality and feminist mobilisation and transnational actors. Its main contribution is to operationalise the concept of violence regimes, thereby moving from theory to a first empirical measurement. By first constructing a new composite measure of violence, a Violence Regimes Index, based on secondary administrative and survey data covering the then 28 EU member states, countries are clustered along two axes of violence: ‘deadly’ violence and ‘damaging’ gender-based violence. This serves to examine if, and how, the production of gendered violence in different states constitutes distinct regimes, analogous to welfare state regimes, as well as to enable future research and further comparisons and contrasts, specifically related to violence and the welfare state. By providing an empirical measurement of violence regimes in the EU, the article then contributes further to the debates on welfare, welfare regimes, and violence. It specifically contributes with discussions on the extent to which there are different violence regimes, comparable to welfare regimes, and with discussions on the relevance of moving from thinking about violence as an institution within other inequality regimes, to thinking about violence as a macro-regime, a way of governing and ruling in its own right. The article concludes that the exclusion of violence from mainstream social theory and research has produced results that may not be valid, and offers an alternative classification using the concept of violence regimes, thereby demonstrating the usefulness of the concept.

本文的目的是研究在欧洲背景下福利国家制度类型是否以及如何转化为暴力制度类型。它以暴力制度的概念为基础（Strid等人，2017年; Hearn等人，2020年）以经验方式检查人际暴力的产生是否构成了不同的制度，以及这些制度与福利制度，性别制度以及其他有关暴力，性别平等，女权主义动员和跨国行为者的比较指标。它的主要贡献是使暴力制度的概念付诸实践，从而从理论转向了首次实证检验。首先根据涵盖当时28个欧盟成员国的二级行政和调查数据，构建一种新的暴力综合衡量指标，即暴力政权指数，各国沿着暴力的两个轴心聚集：“致命”暴力和“破坏性”基于性别的暴力。这用于检查在不同国家中是否发生了性别暴力，以及如何构成了类似于福利国家制度的独特制度，并使未来的研究以及进一步的比较和对比，特别是与暴力和福利国家有关的比较成为可能。通过提供对欧盟暴力制度的实证评估，本文进一步为有关福利，福利制度和暴力的辩论做出了贡献。它特别有助于讨论与福利制度相类似的不同暴力制度的程度，并有助于摆脱将暴力视为其他不平等制度中的一种制度的相关性，认为暴力是一种宏观制度，是一种独立进行治理和统治的方式。文章得出的结论是，将暴力从主流社会理论和研究中排除，可能会产生无效的结果，并提供了使用暴力制度概念的替代分类，从而证明了该概念的有用性。