placestats

Food insecurity vs. Free and fair elections

Fades after adjusting for income

Across 141 countries, Food insecurity and Free and fair elections rise and fall together at r = -0.54 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to +0.05, which could easily be chance (q = 0.73, allowing for the many pairs tested, and allowing for countries in the same region being alike). So the first figure mostly shows richer countries differing from poorer ones, not a link between these two things. Caution: direction is not consistent across regions.

Comparing countries across the middle half of free and fair elections, 0.307 to 0.884 points, food insecurity is better by 23.7% of population at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap reverses, to 1.46% of population the other way.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.542p = 3.7e-12 · 141 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.047p = 0.579 · likely range [-0.12, +0.21]
p, allowing for regions0.588standard error 0.083 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.735across 12,497 pairs

How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.

Food insecurity · % of populationlink with income -0.83 · proxy
Free and fair elections · index (0-1)link with income +0.61 · high

Both of these rise and fall closely with national income, so a strong link between them before adjusting was close to certain. Read the adjusted figure, not the first one.

“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.

Every country as a dot

Food insecurity · % of population →Free and fair elections · index (0-1) →1.1%89.8%00.968Afghanistan: 80.8% of population, 0 index (0-1)Angola: 78.5% of population, 0.293 index (0-1)Albania: 33% of population, 0.467 index (0-1)United Arab Emirates: 3.6% of population, 0.543 index (0-1)Argentina: 33.8% of population, 0.878 index (0-1)Armenia: 7.8% of population, 0.673 index (0-1)Australia: 13.8% of population, 0.962 index (0-1)Austria: 4.7% of population, 0.938 index (0-1)Azerbaijan: 14% of population, 0.111 index (0-1)Burundi: 70.8% of population, 0.107 index (0-1)Belgium: 8.1% of population, 0.968 index (0-1)Benin: 65.6% of population, 0.638 index (0-1)Burkina Faso: 41.4% of population, 0 index (0-1)Bulgaria: 11.6% of population, 0.64 index (0-1)Bosnia and Herzegovina: 9.9% of population, 0.511 index (0-1)Belarus: 1.1% of population, 0.194 index (0-1)Brazil: 13.5% of population, 0.838 index (0-1)Barbados: 31.1% of population, 0.875 index (0-1)Botswana: 53.9% of population, 0.803 index (0-1)Central African Republic: 88.1% of population, 0.123 index (0-1)Canada: 10.2% of population, 0.944 index (0-1)Switzerland: 2% of population, 0.942 index (0-1)Chile: 19.2% of population, 0.956 index (0-1)Cote d'Ivoire: 38.4% of population, 0.333 index (0-1)Cameroon: 61.2% of population, 0.12 index (0-1)Congo, Dem. Rep.: 81.5% of population, 0.18 index (0-1)Colombia: 27.8% of population, 0.756 index (0-1)Comoros: 79.7% of population, 0.183 index (0-1)Cabo Verde: 32.1% of population, 0.836 index (0-1)Costa Rica: 15.4% of population, 0.944 index (0-1)Cyprus: 1.4% of population, 0.909 index (0-1)Czechia: 10% of population, 0.94 index (0-1)Germany: 4.1% of population, 0.957 index (0-1)Djibouti: 49.2% of population, 0.167 index (0-1)Denmark: 6.9% of population, 0.961 index (0-1)Dominican Republic: 43.8% of population, 0.768 index (0-1)Algeria: 17.6% of population, 0.307 index (0-1)Ecuador: 33.3% of population, 0.827 index (0-1)Egypt, Arab Rep.: 30.8% of population, 0.137 index (0-1)Spain: 6.5% of population, 0.956 index (0-1)Estonia: 10.8% of population, 0.952 index (0-1)Ethiopia: 61.4% of population, 0.324 index (0-1)Finland: 13.4% of population, 0.961 index (0-1)Fiji: 29.2% of population, 0.54 index (0-1)France: 8.4% of population, 0.941 index (0-1)United Kingdom: 6.9% of population, 0.924 index (0-1)Georgia: 26.6% of population, 0.32 index (0-1)Ghana: 44.5% of population, 0.709 index (0-1)Gambia, The: 54.8% of population, 0.777 index (0-1)Guinea-Bissau: 62.5% of population, 0 index (0-1)Greece: 6.6% of population, 0.944 index (0-1)Guatemala: 48.8% of population, 0.666 index (0-1)Guyana: 25.5% of population, 0.489 index (0-1)Honduras: 41.3% of population, 0.351 index (0-1)Croatia: 6% of population, 0.875 index (0-1)Haiti: 83.2% of population, 0 index (0-1)Hungary: 15.6% of population, 0.597 index (0-1)Indonesia: 4.5% of population, 0.518 index (0-1)Ireland: 4.8% of population, 0.945 index (0-1)Iran, Islamic Rep.: 38.8% of population, 0.235 index (0-1)Iceland: 7.8% of population, 0.929 index (0-1)Israel: 9.2% of population, 0.873 index (0-1)Italy: 1.7% of population, 0.945 index (0-1)Jamaica: 56.4% of population, 0.884 index (0-1)Japan: 5.8% of population, 0.937 index (0-1)Kazakhstan: 2% of population, 0.339 index (0-1)Kenya: 73.9% of population, 0.493 index (0-1)Kyrgyz Republic: 7% of population, 0.426 index (0-1)Cambodia: 40% of population, 0.092 index (0-1)Korea, Rep.: 5.4% of population, 0.935 index (0-1)Kuwait: 8.4% of population, 0 index (0-1)Lao PDR: 35.6% of population, 0.236 index (0-1)Lebanon: 42.4% of population, 0.307 index (0-1)Liberia: 80.8% of population, 0.592 index (0-1)Libya: 35.1% of population, 0 index (0-1)Sri Lanka: 11.2% of population, 0.914 index (0-1)Lesotho: 59.9% of population, 0.785 index (0-1)Lithuania: 6.5% of population, 0.882 index (0-1)Luxembourg: 2.6% of population, 0.944 index (0-1)Latvia: 11.2% of population, 0.92 index (0-1)Moldova: 25.1% of population, 0.662 index (0-1)Madagascar: 72.6% of population, 0.183 index (0-1)Maldives: 13.4% of population, 0.643 index (0-1)Mexico: 19.3% of population, 0.545 index (0-1)North Macedonia: 15.2% of population, 0.701 index (0-1)Mali: 20.6% of population, 0 index (0-1)Malta: 9.2% of population, 0.903 index (0-1)Myanmar: 32.7% of population, 0 index (0-1)Montenegro: 10.4% of population, 0.608 index (0-1)Mongolia: 4.8% of population, 0.586 index (0-1)Mauritania: 66.3% of population, 0.288 index (0-1)Mauritius: 31.1% of population, 0.865 index (0-1)Malawi: 81.7% of population, 0.596 index (0-1)Malaysia: 16.7% of population, 0.598 index (0-1)Namibia: 55.9% of population, 0.604 index (0-1)Niger: 50.9% of population, 0 index (0-1)Nigeria: 74.8% of population, 0.355 index (0-1)Netherlands: 7.5% of population, 0.954 index (0-1)Norway: 7.8% of population, 0.966 index (0-1)Nepal: 36.6% of population, 0.693 index (0-1)New Zealand: 17.3% of population, 0.954 index (0-1)Pakistan: 42.1% of population, 0.174 index (0-1)Peru: 41% of population, 0.861 index (0-1)Philippines: 32.9% of population, 0.271 index (0-1)Papua New Guinea: 57.3% of population, 0.27 index (0-1)Poland: 3.4% of population, 0.825 index (0-1)Portugal: 11.9% of population, 0.94 index (0-1)Paraguay: 26.2% of population, 0.633 index (0-1)Romania: 18.6% of population, 0.658 index (0-1)Russian Federation: 2.8% of population, 0.135 index (0-1)Senegal: 29.1% of population, 0.701 index (0-1)Singapore: 9.5% of population, 0.782 index (0-1)Sierra Leone: 89.8% of population, 0.319 index (0-1)El Salvador: 45.5% of population, 0.307 index (0-1)Somalia, Fed. Rep.: 79.5% of population, 0 index (0-1)Serbia: 9.5% of population, 0.212 index (0-1)Sao Tome and Principe: 54.6% of population, 0.753 index (0-1)Suriname: 35.8% of population, 0.864 index (0-1)Slovak Republic: 7.5% of population, 0.938 index (0-1)Slovenia: 8.2% of population, 0.916 index (0-1)Sweden: 6.9% of population, 0.945 index (0-1)Eswatini: 59% of population, 0.376 index (0-1)Seychelles: 14.3% of population, 0.884 index (0-1)Chad: 66.3% of population, 0.079 index (0-1)Togo: 58.5% of population, 0.309 index (0-1)Thailand: 5.4% of population, 0.457 index (0-1)Tajikistan: 25.1% of population, 0.094 index (0-1)Timor-Leste: 53.7% of population, 0.857 index (0-1)Trinidad and Tobago: 27.6% of population, 0.872 index (0-1)Tunisia: 25.4% of population, 0.445 index (0-1)Tanzania: 58% of population, 0.364 index (0-1)Uganda: 54.6% of population, 0.129 index (0-1)Ukraine: 32.5% of population, 0.604 index (0-1)Uruguay: 16.2% of population, 0.947 index (0-1)United States: 10.3% of population, 0.902 index (0-1)Uzbekistan: 24.4% of population, 0.304 index (0-1)Viet Nam: 10.7% of population, 0.527 index (0-1)Vanuatu: 23.3% of population, 0.853 index (0-1)South Africa: 20.7% of population, 0.849 index (0-1)Zambia: 45.3% of population, 0.461 index (0-1)Zimbabwe: 68.8% of population, 0.171 index (0-1)AFGBLRCHEHTIITAJAMKWTLBRLUXMWIRUSSOM

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted-0.5423.7e-12141
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted-0.5605.2e-13141
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income+0.0470.579141
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income+0.0950.265141

The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 141 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: +0.495 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.023 (without MLI) to +0.089 (without VUT). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: VUT (+0.042).

Fragile: this link may not hold up.
  • direction is not consistent across regions

Within each region

Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.

nr
East Asia & Pacific18-0.07
Europe & Central Asia46+0.08
Latin America & Caribbean20-0.28
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan13-0.03
Sub-Saharan Africa39-0.09

By income third

If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.

nr
Poorest third47-0.03
Middle third47+0.20
Richest third47-0.01

By largest religious group

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
Christians90-0.10
Muslims34-0.06

By last european coloniser

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
France21+0.01
Never a European colony16-0.01
Spain14+0.15
United Kingdom40-0.03

Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = +0.047 after dropping 0 countries.

Two series, one country

Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.

Loading…

Over time, within countries

Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 9years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

Within countries over time, there is no link that is clearly more than chance (r = -0.070, comparing each country only with itself over the years, and each year only with the same year elsewhere). Whatever the cross-country picture shows, countries whose food insecurity moved did not tend to see their free and fair elections move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)+0.047for comparison
Within countries-0.116each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere-0.070q = 0.383 · 122 countries
Year-on-year changes-0.042q = 0.588
Read with care.
  • Almost all of this indicator's variation is between countries, not within them, so the within-country estimate rests on a small part of the data.

1,024 country-years (one country in one year), 122 countries, 2015–2023, about 8 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 5% for Food insecurity, 3% for Free and fair elections. The margins of error allow for each country appearing many times, and for each year’s value being close to the year before.

Year-to-year changes are a cautious test, not a final answer. Looking only at changes from one year to the next removes each country’s own trends. But it also makes measurement mistakes louder, which pulls the results toward zero. A near-zero result here is weak evidence of no link, not proof.

With one measure years behind the other

0.20−0.2-100+6years Free and fair elections trails Food insecurity →lag -10: r = 0.089 (n = 1,024)lag -9: r = 0.118 (n = 1,024)lag -8: r = 0.114 (n = 1,024)lag -7: r = 0.118 (n = 1,024)lag -6: r = 0.093 (n = 1,024)lag -5: r = 0.050 (n = 1,024)lag -4: r = 0.012 (n = 1,024)lag -3: r = -0.015 (n = 1,024)lag -2: r = -0.044 (n = 1,024)lag -1: r = -0.066 (n = 1,024)lag +0: r = -0.070 (n = 1,024)lag +1: r = -0.061 (n = 1,024)lag +2: r = -0.024 (n = 1,024)lag +3: r = -0.011 (n = 877)lag +4: r = 0.015 (n = 734)lag +5: r = 0.034 (n = 586)lag +6: r = 0.062 (n = 480)

Same year (lag 0): -0.070. A peak away from zero does not show which comes first. These series change slowly — this year’s value is close to last year’s. That makes the curve smooth and nearly symmetric, whatever produced the data. Even a sharp peak at one lag (a gap of some years) would not prove that one measure changes the other.

The data


% of population

index (0-1)
Years
Sierra Leone SLE89.8%0.3192023, 2025
Central African Republic CAF88.1%0.1232022, 2025
Haiti HTI83.2%02023, 2025
Malawi MWI81.7%0.5962023, 2025
Congo, Dem. Rep. COD81.5%0.182023, 2025
Liberia LBR80.8%0.5922023, 2025
Afghanistan AFG80.8%02023, 2025
Comoros COM79.7%0.1832023, 2025
Somalia, Fed. Rep. SOM79.5%02021, 2025
Angola AGO78.5%0.2932021, 2025
Nigeria NGA74.8%0.3552023, 2025
Kenya KEN73.9%0.4932023, 2025
Madagascar MDG72.6%0.1832023, 2025
Burundi BDI70.8%0.1072023, 2025
Zimbabwe ZWE68.8%0.1712023, 2025

World Bank, World Development Indicators
Coppedge, M. et al., V-Dem Dataset, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project

Sources

Food insecurity

Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%)

Food and Agriculture Organization, Food Insecurity Experience Scale · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly

Asked of people, in a survey about running out of food, and reported as a three-year average from 2015. It is the one measure of hunger here that comes from what people say they went through, rather than from a model.

Free and fair elections

Free and fair elections index

V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg · via Our World in Data · CC BY 4.0 · updated annual

Whether elections are run without voter-registration fraud, widespread irregularities, government threats against the opposition, vote buying or election violence. This asks a narrower question than whether a country is a democracy, and one that is easier to answer. A state can run clean elections while barring the opposition from standing. It can also run dirty elections and still change government. It is the clean-elections part of the electoral democracy index. So its pair with that index, and with liberal and participatory democracy, is built from the same numbers and flagged as such.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2017–2025. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 7 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 12,497 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Food insecurity and Free and fair elections

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Food insecurity changes Free and fair elections, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Food insecurity or Free and fair elections