placestats

Food insecurity vs. Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 126 countries, Food insecurity and Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion rise and fall together at r = -0.32 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). It holds up almost unchanged when only countries with similar income (GDP per person) are compared (r = -0.42, q = 0.045, allowing for the many pairs tested). Caution: much weaker within regions than across them (largely a between-region difference).

Comparing countries across the middle half of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, 31.4% to 58% of unintended pregnancies, food insecurity is better by 12.7% of population at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 9.83% of population.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.319p = 0.000 · 126 countries
After adjusting for national income-0.419p = 1.2e-6 · likely range [-0.55, -0.26]
p, allowing for regions0.043standard error 0.164 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.045across 14,952 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 -0.81 · proxy
Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion · % of unintended pregnancieslink with income +0.12 · independent

“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 →Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion · % of unintended pregnancies →1%88.1%19.7%86.1%Angola: 75.4% of population, 28.1% of unintended pregnanciesAlbania: 31.8% of population, 59.2% of unintended pregnanciesArgentina: 31.7% of population, 48.4% of unintended pregnanciesArmenia: 7.1% of population, 81.8% of unintended pregnanciesAustralia: 15.1% of population, 43.1% of unintended pregnanciesAzerbaijan: 14.6% of population, 77.6% of unintended pregnanciesBurundi: 70.8% of population, 26.2% of unintended pregnanciesBelgium: 9.3% of population, 37.1% of unintended pregnanciesBenin: 65.6% of population, 36.9% of unintended pregnanciesBurkina Faso: 41.2% of population, 40.6% of unintended pregnanciesBangladesh: 26.2% of population, 60.1% of unintended pregnanciesBulgaria: 10.5% of population, 35.7% of unintended pregnanciesBosnia and Herzegovina: 8.7% of population, 57.3% of unintended pregnanciesBelarus: 1% of population, 56% of unintended pregnanciesBelize: 12.8% of population, 45.2% of unintended pregnanciesBolivia: 29.6% of population, 36.3% of unintended pregnanciesBrazil: 9.6% of population, 48.4% of unintended pregnanciesBarbados: 31.1% of population, 58% of unintended pregnanciesBotswana: 52% of population, 32.2% of unintended pregnanciesCentral African Republic: 88.1% of population, 30% of unintended pregnanciesCanada: 10.5% of population, 36.8% of unintended pregnanciesSwitzerland: 2.6% of population, 25.5% of unintended pregnanciesChile: 16% of population, 52.5% of unintended pregnanciesCote d'Ivoire: 37.9% of population, 36.7% of unintended pregnanciesCameroon: 60.9% of population, 40.7% of unintended pregnanciesCongo, Dem. Rep.: 81.7% of population, 27.9% of unintended pregnanciesColombia: 28% of population, 43.2% of unintended pregnanciesComoros: 79.7% of population, 32.4% of unintended pregnanciesCabo Verde: 32.1% of population, 48.6% of unintended pregnanciesCosta Rica: 13.9% of population, 41% of unintended pregnanciesCzechia: 9.1% of population, 19.7% of unintended pregnanciesGermany: 4.1% of population, 27.1% of unintended pregnanciesDjibouti: 49.2% of population, 41.4% of unintended pregnanciesDenmark: 6.2% of population, 38.9% of unintended pregnanciesDominican Republic: 41.3% of population, 44% of unintended pregnanciesEcuador: 31.1% of population, 35.1% of unintended pregnanciesSpain: 7.4% of population, 43.1% of unintended pregnanciesEstonia: 13.1% of population, 41.7% of unintended pregnanciesEthiopia: 60.1% of population, 31% of unintended pregnanciesFinland: 13.3% of population, 24.8% of unintended pregnanciesFrance: 9.4% of population, 49.5% of unintended pregnanciesUnited Kingdom: 7.4% of population, 36.2% of unintended pregnanciesGeorgia: 22.8% of population, 86.1% of unintended pregnanciesGhana: 43.5% of population, 35.9% of unintended pregnanciesGambia, The: 47.2% of population, 31.1% of unintended pregnanciesGuinea-Bissau: 62.5% of population, 58.5% of unintended pregnanciesGreece: 7.1% of population, 45.8% of unintended pregnanciesGuatemala: 49% of population, 30.1% of unintended pregnanciesGuyana: 25.5% of population, 47.5% of unintended pregnanciesHonduras: 39.3% of population, 30.6% of unintended pregnanciesCroatia: 4.9% of population, 49.9% of unintended pregnanciesHaiti: 83.5% of population, 35.5% of unintended pregnanciesHungary: 16.9% of population, 49.4% of unintended pregnanciesIndonesia: 4.2% of population, 63% of unintended pregnanciesIceland: 7.9% of population, 39.1% of unintended pregnanciesItaly: 1.7% of population, 67.1% of unintended pregnanciesJamaica: 55.8% of population, 43.9% of unintended pregnanciesJapan: 6.1% of population, 30.1% of unintended pregnanciesKazakhstan: 1.4% of population, 82.1% of unintended pregnanciesKenya: 71.7% of population, 38% of unintended pregnanciesKyrgyz Republic: 7.4% of population, 79.2% of unintended pregnanciesCambodia: 36.4% of population, 65.3% of unintended pregnanciesKorea, Rep.: 5.8% of population, 61.9% of unintended pregnanciesLao PDR: 34.4% of population, 68.3% of unintended pregnanciesLiberia: 79% of population, 40.4% of unintended pregnanciesSt. Lucia: 22.2% of population, 54.6% of unintended pregnanciesSri Lanka: 10.1% of population, 72.3% of unintended pregnanciesLesotho: 61.6% of population, 23.9% of unintended pregnanciesLithuania: 6.7% of population, 27.7% of unintended pregnanciesLatvia: 11.7% of population, 30.2% of unintended pregnanciesMoldova: 26.4% of population, 70.6% of unintended pregnanciesMadagascar: 61.1% of population, 62.8% of unintended pregnanciesMaldives: 13.4% of population, 70.5% of unintended pregnanciesMexico: 16.5% of population, 50.9% of unintended pregnanciesNorth Macedonia: 9.2% of population, 63.4% of unintended pregnanciesMali: 20.6% of population, 33.5% of unintended pregnanciesMyanmar: 31.3% of population, 74.2% of unintended pregnanciesMontenegro: 9% of population, 54.2% of unintended pregnanciesMongolia: 4.7% of population, 65.7% of unintended pregnanciesMauritania: 65.1% of population, 25.4% of unintended pregnanciesMalawi: 81.6% of population, 27.4% of unintended pregnanciesNamibia: 54% of population, 27.9% of unintended pregnanciesNiger: 50.3% of population, 31.3% of unintended pregnanciesNigeria: 76.5% of population, 48.2% of unintended pregnanciesNetherlands: 8.9% of population, 40.8% of unintended pregnanciesNorway: 7.6% of population, 31.7% of unintended pregnanciesNepal: 35% of population, 69.4% of unintended pregnanciesNew Zealand: 17.9% of population, 29.3% of unintended pregnanciesPakistan: 22.9% of population, 60.9% of unintended pregnanciesPeru: 33.6% of population, 47.5% of unintended pregnanciesPhilippines: 32.7% of population, 50.5% of unintended pregnanciesPapua New Guinea: 57.3% of population, 46.3% of unintended pregnanciesPoland: 2.7% of population, 36.6% of unintended pregnanciesPortugal: 11% of population, 32.4% of unintended pregnanciesParaguay: 25.8% of population, 51% of unintended pregnanciesRomania: 15.2% of population, 71.2% of unintended pregnanciesRussian Federation: 2.6% of population, 71.8% of unintended pregnanciesSenegal: 27.7% of population, 25.1% of unintended pregnanciesSingapore: 10.1% of population, 27.5% of unintended pregnanciesSierra Leone: 88.1% of population, 51.5% of unintended pregnanciesEl Salvador: 41.7% of population, 41.5% of unintended pregnanciesSerbia: 6.7% of population, 60.8% of unintended pregnanciesSao Tome and Principe: 54.6% of population, 29.6% of unintended pregnanciesSuriname: 35.9% of population, 46.5% of unintended pregnanciesSlovak Republic: 7.3% of population, 26.2% of unintended pregnanciesSlovenia: 7.6% of population, 24.4% of unintended pregnanciesSweden: 7.9% of population, 48.3% of unintended pregnanciesEswatini: 61.7% of population, 26.5% of unintended pregnanciesChad: 65% of population, 29.5% of unintended pregnanciesTogo: 56.3% of population, 32.2% of unintended pregnanciesThailand: 4.5% of population, 64.4% of unintended pregnanciesTajikistan: 24% of population, 71% of unintended pregnanciesTimor-Leste: 53.7% of population, 67.8% of unintended pregnanciesTonga: 14.8% of population, 52% of unintended pregnanciesTrinidad and Tobago: 27.6% of population, 58% of unintended pregnanciesTanzania: 57% of population, 35.9% of unintended pregnanciesUganda: 51.6% of population, 29.7% of unintended pregnanciesUkraine: 32% of population, 75.9% of unintended pregnanciesUruguay: 15.5% of population, 27.6% of unintended pregnanciesUnited States: 10.7% of population, 34.2% of unintended pregnanciesViet Nam: 9.4% of population, 74.5% of unintended pregnanciesVanuatu: 23.3% of population, 45.4% of unintended pregnanciesSamoa: 18.2% of population, 64.5% of unintended pregnanciesSouth Africa: 20.9% of population, 36.6% of unintended pregnanciesZambia: 45.8% of population, 28.2% of unintended pregnanciesZimbabwe: 70.1% of population, 24.8% of unintended pregnanciesARMCAFCHECODCZEKAZKGZMDGMWISLESVNTLS

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted-0.3190.000126
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted-0.2730.002126
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income-0.4191.2e-6126
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income-0.3574.5e-5126

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 126 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: -0.099 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.444 (without MLI) to -0.395 (without KGZ). 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: MLI (-0.026).

Fragile: this link may not hold up.
  • much weaker within regions than across them (largely a between-region difference)

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 & Pacific18-0.36
Europe & Central Asia41-0.03
Latin America & Caribbean23-0.03
Sub-Saharan Africa36+0.01

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 third42-0.36
Middle third42-0.57
Richest third42-0.10

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
Christians88-0.34
Muslims23-0.31

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
France18-0.25
Never a European colony13-0.52
Spain15-0.12
United Kingdom34-0.48

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 = -0.419 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 0years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

Not enough history inside each country to look at this over time. That needs countries measured for several years in a row, and at least one of these measures is measured too rarely.

The data


% of population
% of unintended pregnancies		Years
Sierra Leone SLE88.1%51.5%2024, 2019
Central African Republic CAF88.1%30%2022, 2019
Haiti HTI83.5%35.5%2024, 2019
Congo, Dem. Rep. COD81.7%27.9%2024, 2019
Malawi MWI81.6%27.4%2024, 2019
Comoros COM79.7%32.4%2023, 2019
Liberia LBR79%40.4%2024, 2019
Nigeria NGA76.5%48.2%2024, 2019
Angola AGO75.4%28.1%2024, 2019
Kenya KEN71.7%38%2024, 2019
Burundi BDI70.8%26.2%2024, 2019
Zimbabwe ZWE70.1%24.8%2024, 2019
Benin BEN65.6%36.9%2024, 2019
Mauritania MRT65.1%25.4%2024, 2019
Chad TCD65%29.5%2024, 2019

World Bank, World Development Indicators
Bearak, J. M., Popinchalk, A., Beavin, C. et al. (2022), 'Country-specific estimates of unintended pregnancy and abortion incidence: a global comparative analysis of levels in 2015-2019', BMJ Global Health 7(3), e007151. Guttmacher Institute. Supplementary appendix, tables A3-A5.

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.

Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion

Share of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion (model estimate, 2015-2019)

Guttmacher Institute (Bearak et al. 2022, BMJ Global Health) · CC BY-NC 4.0 · updated one edition (2015-2019 estimates, published 2022)

Of the unintended pregnancies in the abortion rate's model, the share that ended in abortion, averaged over 2015-2019 (Guttmacher Institute). The rest ended in a birth or a miscarriage. Like the other two, it is an estimate with a range. No "better" direction is set.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2017–2024. 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 14,952 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Food insecurity and Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion

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

More links with Food insecurity or Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion