placestats

Food insecurity vs. Political corruption

Fades after adjusting for income

Across 141 countries, Food insecurity and Political corruption rise and fall together at r = +0.56 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to -0.07, which could easily be chance (q = 0.77, 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 political corruption, 0.166 to 0.736 points, food insecurity is worse by 25.8% of population at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap reverses, to 2.5% of population the other way.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.555p = 9.1e-13 · 141 countries
After adjusting for national income-0.074p = 0.387 · likely range [-0.24, +0.09]
p, allowing for regions0.664standard error 0.161 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.775across 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
Political corruption · index (0-1)link with income -0.68 · 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 →Political corruption · index (0-1) →1.1%89.8%0.0040.952Afghanistan: 80.8% of population, 0.769 index (0-1)Angola: 78.5% of population, 0.57 index (0-1)Albania: 33% of population, 0.624 index (0-1)United Arab Emirates: 3.6% of population, 0.105 index (0-1)Argentina: 33.8% of population, 0.415 index (0-1)Armenia: 7.8% of population, 0.472 index (0-1)Australia: 13.8% of population, 0.029 index (0-1)Austria: 4.7% of population, 0.095 index (0-1)Azerbaijan: 14% of population, 0.89 index (0-1)Burundi: 70.8% of population, 0.845 index (0-1)Belgium: 8.1% of population, 0.031 index (0-1)Benin: 65.6% of population, 0.191 index (0-1)Burkina Faso: 41.4% of population, 0.373 index (0-1)Bulgaria: 11.6% of population, 0.643 index (0-1)Bosnia and Herzegovina: 9.9% of population, 0.726 index (0-1)Belarus: 1.1% of population, 0.41 index (0-1)Brazil: 13.5% of population, 0.423 index (0-1)Barbados: 31.1% of population, 0.073 index (0-1)Botswana: 53.9% of population, 0.204 index (0-1)Central African Republic: 88.1% of population, 0.854 index (0-1)Canada: 10.2% of population, 0.026 index (0-1)Switzerland: 2% of population, 0.02 index (0-1)Chile: 19.2% of population, 0.075 index (0-1)Cote d'Ivoire: 38.4% of population, 0.598 index (0-1)Cameroon: 61.2% of population, 0.939 index (0-1)Congo, Dem. Rep.: 81.5% of population, 0.886 index (0-1)Colombia: 27.8% of population, 0.388 index (0-1)Comoros: 79.7% of population, 0.774 index (0-1)Cabo Verde: 32.1% of population, 0.288 index (0-1)Costa Rica: 15.4% of population, 0.206 index (0-1)Cyprus: 1.4% of population, 0.166 index (0-1)Czechia: 10% of population, 0.171 index (0-1)Germany: 4.1% of population, 0.024 index (0-1)Djibouti: 49.2% of population, 0.706 index (0-1)Denmark: 6.9% of population, 0.004 index (0-1)Dominican Republic: 43.8% of population, 0.588 index (0-1)Algeria: 17.6% of population, 0.662 index (0-1)Ecuador: 33.3% of population, 0.652 index (0-1)Egypt, Arab Rep.: 30.8% of population, 0.729 index (0-1)Spain: 6.5% of population, 0.113 index (0-1)Estonia: 10.8% of population, 0.025 index (0-1)Ethiopia: 61.4% of population, 0.529 index (0-1)Finland: 13.4% of population, 0.031 index (0-1)Fiji: 29.2% of population, 0.289 index (0-1)France: 8.4% of population, 0.056 index (0-1)United Kingdom: 6.9% of population, 0.042 index (0-1)Georgia: 26.6% of population, 0.289 index (0-1)Ghana: 44.5% of population, 0.615 index (0-1)Gambia, The: 54.8% of population, 0.271 index (0-1)Guinea-Bissau: 62.5% of population, 0.828 index (0-1)Greece: 6.6% of population, 0.276 index (0-1)Guatemala: 48.8% of population, 0.616 index (0-1)Guyana: 25.5% of population, 0.507 index (0-1)Honduras: 41.3% of population, 0.752 index (0-1)Croatia: 6% of population, 0.254 index (0-1)Haiti: 83.2% of population, 0.786 index (0-1)Hungary: 15.6% of population, 0.488 index (0-1)Indonesia: 4.5% of population, 0.795 index (0-1)Ireland: 4.8% of population, 0.032 index (0-1)Iran, Islamic Rep.: 38.8% of population, 0.768 index (0-1)Iceland: 7.8% of population, 0.014 index (0-1)Israel: 9.2% of population, 0.107 index (0-1)Italy: 1.7% of population, 0.157 index (0-1)Jamaica: 56.4% of population, 0.207 index (0-1)Japan: 5.8% of population, 0.05 index (0-1)Kazakhstan: 2% of population, 0.736 index (0-1)Kenya: 73.9% of population, 0.564 index (0-1)Kyrgyz Republic: 7% of population, 0.793 index (0-1)Cambodia: 40% of population, 0.904 index (0-1)Korea, Rep.: 5.4% of population, 0.156 index (0-1)Kuwait: 8.4% of population, 0.346 index (0-1)Lao PDR: 35.6% of population, 0.765 index (0-1)Lebanon: 42.4% of population, 0.83 index (0-1)Liberia: 80.8% of population, 0.877 index (0-1)Libya: 35.1% of population, 0.811 index (0-1)Sri Lanka: 11.2% of population, 0.278 index (0-1)Lesotho: 59.9% of population, 0.472 index (0-1)Lithuania: 6.5% of population, 0.159 index (0-1)Luxembourg: 2.6% of population, 0.025 index (0-1)Latvia: 11.2% of population, 0.07 index (0-1)Moldova: 25.1% of population, 0.325 index (0-1)Madagascar: 72.6% of population, 0.882 index (0-1)Maldives: 13.4% of population, 0.312 index (0-1)Mexico: 19.3% of population, 0.574 index (0-1)North Macedonia: 15.2% of population, 0.753 index (0-1)Mali: 20.6% of population, 0.72 index (0-1)Malta: 9.2% of population, 0.186 index (0-1)Myanmar: 32.7% of population, 0.859 index (0-1)Montenegro: 10.4% of population, 0.43 index (0-1)Mongolia: 4.8% of population, 0.693 index (0-1)Mauritania: 66.3% of population, 0.825 index (0-1)Mauritius: 31.1% of population, 0.356 index (0-1)Malawi: 81.7% of population, 0.628 index (0-1)Malaysia: 16.7% of population, 0.322 index (0-1)Namibia: 55.9% of population, 0.274 index (0-1)Niger: 50.9% of population, 0.591 index (0-1)Nigeria: 74.8% of population, 0.834 index (0-1)Netherlands: 7.5% of population, 0.027 index (0-1)Norway: 7.8% of population, 0.01 index (0-1)Nepal: 36.6% of population, 0.561 index (0-1)New Zealand: 17.3% of population, 0.014 index (0-1)Pakistan: 42.1% of population, 0.802 index (0-1)Peru: 41% of population, 0.63 index (0-1)Philippines: 32.9% of population, 0.841 index (0-1)Papua New Guinea: 57.3% of population, 0.684 index (0-1)Poland: 3.4% of population, 0.081 index (0-1)Portugal: 11.9% of population, 0.166 index (0-1)Paraguay: 26.2% of population, 0.801 index (0-1)Romania: 18.6% of population, 0.419 index (0-1)Russian Federation: 2.8% of population, 0.783 index (0-1)Senegal: 29.1% of population, 0.404 index (0-1)Singapore: 9.5% of population, 0.013 index (0-1)Sierra Leone: 89.8% of population, 0.571 index (0-1)El Salvador: 45.5% of population, 0.682 index (0-1)Somalia, Fed. Rep.: 79.5% of population, 0.87 index (0-1)Serbia: 9.5% of population, 0.794 index (0-1)Sao Tome and Principe: 54.6% of population, 0.289 index (0-1)Suriname: 35.8% of population, 0.172 index (0-1)Slovak Republic: 7.5% of population, 0.29 index (0-1)Slovenia: 8.2% of population, 0.078 index (0-1)Sweden: 6.9% of population, 0.009 index (0-1)Eswatini: 59% of population, 0.554 index (0-1)Seychelles: 14.3% of population, 0.054 index (0-1)Chad: 66.3% of population, 0.952 index (0-1)Togo: 58.5% of population, 0.757 index (0-1)Thailand: 5.4% of population, 0.635 index (0-1)Tajikistan: 25.1% of population, 0.893 index (0-1)Timor-Leste: 53.7% of population, 0.25 index (0-1)Trinidad and Tobago: 27.6% of population, 0.1 index (0-1)Tunisia: 25.4% of population, 0.41 index (0-1)Tanzania: 58% of population, 0.329 index (0-1)Uganda: 54.6% of population, 0.889 index (0-1)Ukraine: 32.5% of population, 0.641 index (0-1)Uruguay: 16.2% of population, 0.055 index (0-1)United States: 10.3% of population, 0.06 index (0-1)Uzbekistan: 24.4% of population, 0.823 index (0-1)Viet Nam: 10.7% of population, 0.466 index (0-1)Vanuatu: 23.3% of population, 0.332 index (0-1)South Africa: 20.7% of population, 0.538 index (0-1)Zambia: 45.3% of population, 0.428 index (0-1)Zimbabwe: 68.8% of population, 0.852 index (0-1)AZEBENCAFCHECODDEUIDNJAMLBRLUXRUSSLE

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted+0.5559.1e-13141
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted+0.5643.4e-13141
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income-0.0740.387141
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income-0.1190.162141

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: +0.482 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.106 (without VUT) to -0.052 (without IDN). 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 (-0.033).

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 & Pacific18-0.27
Europe & Central Asia46-0.11
Latin America & Caribbean20+0.10
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan13+0.05
Sub-Saharan Africa39+0.31

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+0.10
Middle third47-0.23
Richest third47-0.03

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+0.00
Muslims34+0.09

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+0.39
Never a European colony16-0.38
Spain14+0.29
United Kingdom40+0.08

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 = -0.074 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 = -0.008, 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 political corruption move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)-0.074for comparison
Within countries-0.056each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere-0.008q = 0.959 · 122 countries
Year-on-year changes+0.004q = 0.973
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: 2% for Food insecurity, 3% for Political corruption. 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 Political corruption trails Food insecurity →lag -10: r = -0.007 (n = 1,017)lag -9: r = -0.040 (n = 1,017)lag -8: r = -0.063 (n = 1,022)lag -7: r = -0.074 (n = 1,023)lag -6: r = -0.060 (n = 1,024)lag -5: r = -0.038 (n = 1,024)lag -4: r = -0.043 (n = 1,024)lag -3: r = -0.027 (n = 1,024)lag -2: r = -0.021 (n = 1,024)lag -1: r = -0.009 (n = 1,024)lag +0: r = -0.008 (n = 1,024)lag +1: r = -0.033 (n = 1,024)lag +2: r = -0.085 (n = 1,024)lag +3: r = -0.117 (n = 877)lag +4: r = -0.166 (n = 734)lag +5: r = -0.166 (n = 586)lag +6: r = -0.076 (n = 480)

Same year (lag 0): -0.008. 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 largest value on this curve (-0.17 at lag +5) is higher than the same-year one by 0.16. That gap is not a finding. It is the largest of 17 closely related estimates, and picking the biggest of many tests always makes it look bigger. That is exactly why nothing on this site is ranked or chosen by lag.

The data


% of population

index (0-1)
Years
Sierra Leone SLE89.8%0.5712023, 2025
Central African Republic CAF88.1%0.8542022, 2025
Haiti HTI83.2%0.7862023, 2025
Malawi MWI81.7%0.6282023, 2025
Congo, Dem. Rep. COD81.5%0.8862023, 2025
Liberia LBR80.8%0.8772023, 2025
Afghanistan AFG80.8%0.7692023, 2025
Comoros COM79.7%0.7742023, 2025
Somalia, Fed. Rep. SOM79.5%0.872021, 2025
Angola AGO78.5%0.572021, 2025
Nigeria NGA74.8%0.8342023, 2025
Kenya KEN73.9%0.5642023, 2025
Madagascar MDG72.6%0.8822023, 2025
Burundi BDI70.8%0.8452023, 2025
Zimbabwe ZWE68.8%0.8522023, 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.

Political corruption

Political corruption index

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

Expert ratings of corruption across the government, parliament, courts and public sector. It runs the opposite way to the Corruption Perceptions Index, where higher means cleaner. So the two should move strongly in opposite directions. V-Dem is also one of the datasets Transparency International combines into that index.

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 Political corruption

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

More links with Food insecurity or Political corruption