placestats

Food insecurity vs. Vulnerable employment

Fades after adjusting for income

Across 147 countries, Food insecurity and Vulnerable employment rise and fall together at r = +0.78 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to +0.19, which could easily be chance (q = 0.33, 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.

Comparing countries across the middle half of food insecurity, 9.5% to 45.5% of population, vulnerable employment is worse by 29.4% of employment at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 6.38% of employment.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.775p = 1.0e-30 · 147 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.187p = 0.024 · likely range [+0.03, +0.34]
p, allowing for regions0.138standard error 0.110 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.327across 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
Vulnerable employment · % of employmentlink with income -0.87 · proxy

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 →Vulnerable employment · % of employment →1.1%89.8%1.5%90.2%Afghanistan: 80.8% of population, 81.8% of employmentAngola: 78.5% of population, 66.3% of employmentAlbania: 33% of population, 46% of employmentUnited Arab Emirates: 3.6% of population, 1.5% of employmentArgentina: 33.8% of population, 22.3% of employmentArmenia: 7.8% of population, 32.8% of employmentAustralia: 13.8% of population, 9.12% of employmentAustria: 4.7% of population, 7.85% of employmentAzerbaijan: 14% of population, 53.8% of employmentBurundi: 70.8% of population, 83.7% of employmentBelgium: 8.1% of population, 11% of employmentBenin: 65.6% of population, 78.5% of employmentBurkina Faso: 41.4% of population, 80.6% of employmentBulgaria: 11.6% of population, 6.92% of employmentBahamas, The: 17.2% of population, 15.9% of employmentBosnia and Herzegovina: 9.9% of population, 18.1% of employmentBelarus: 1.1% of population, 6.33% of employmentBelize: 45.5% of population, 29.8% of employmentBrazil: 13.5% of population, 26.1% of employmentBarbados: 31.1% of population, 18.8% of employmentBotswana: 53.9% of population, 25.6% of employmentCentral African Republic: 88.1% of population, 79.4% of employmentCanada: 10.2% of population, 9.56% of employmentSwitzerland: 2% of population, 9.6% of employmentChile: 19.2% of population, 20.9% of employmentCote d'Ivoire: 38.4% of population, 69.4% of employmentCameroon: 61.2% of population, 67.6% of employmentCongo, Dem. Rep.: 81.5% of population, 81.5% of employmentColombia: 27.8% of population, 43% of employmentComoros: 79.7% of population, 56.8% of employmentCabo Verde: 32.1% of population, 34.3% of employmentCosta Rica: 15.4% of population, 23.4% of employmentCyprus: 1.4% of population, 8.38% of employmentCzechia: 10% of population, 13.5% of employmentGermany: 4.1% of population, 4.34% of employmentDjibouti: 49.2% of population, 30.3% of employmentDenmark: 6.9% of population, 5.4% of employmentDominican Republic: 43.8% of population, 38% of employmentAlgeria: 17.6% of population, 25.6% of employmentEcuador: 33.3% of population, 50.1% of employmentEgypt, Arab Rep.: 30.8% of population, 23.9% of employmentSpain: 6.5% of population, 10.1% of employmentEstonia: 10.8% of population, 7.09% of employmentEthiopia: 61.4% of population, 84.1% of employmentFinland: 13.4% of population, 9.46% of employmentFiji: 29.2% of population, 32.8% of employmentFrance: 8.4% of population, 8.5% of employmentUnited Kingdom: 6.9% of population, 11.5% of employmentGeorgia: 26.6% of population, 42.4% of employmentGhana: 44.5% of population, 60% of employmentGambia, The: 54.8% of population, 63.5% of employmentGuinea-Bissau: 62.5% of population, 74.9% of employmentGreece: 6.6% of population, 23.1% of employmentGuatemala: 48.8% of population, 36.2% of employmentGuyana: 25.5% of population, 25.3% of employmentHonduras: 41.3% of population, 33.9% of employmentCroatia: 6% of population, 6.35% of employmentHaiti: 83.2% of population, 76% of employmentHungary: 15.6% of population, 7.83% of employmentIndonesia: 4.5% of population, 50% of employmentIreland: 4.8% of population, 9.64% of employmentIran, Islamic Rep.: 38.8% of population, 39.5% of employmentIceland: 7.8% of population, 8.4% of employmentIsrael: 9.2% of population, 7.7% of employmentItaly: 1.7% of population, 14.3% of employmentJamaica: 56.4% of population, 31.6% of employmentJapan: 5.8% of population, 7.49% of employmentKazakhstan: 2% of population, 24.8% of employmentKenya: 73.9% of population, 63.8% of employmentKyrgyz Republic: 7% of population, 29% of employmentCambodia: 40% of population, 52.3% of employmentKorea, Rep.: 5.4% of population, 17.7% of employmentKuwait: 8.4% of population, 2.4% of employmentLao PDR: 35.6% of population, 76.4% of employmentLebanon: 42.4% of population, 19.4% of employmentLiberia: 80.8% of population, 76.9% of employmentLibya: 35.1% of population, 21.6% of employmentSt. Lucia: 22.2% of population, 22% of employmentSri Lanka: 11.2% of population, 39.2% of employmentLesotho: 59.9% of population, 32.6% of employmentLithuania: 6.5% of population, 10.4% of employmentLuxembourg: 2.6% of population, 6.95% of employmentLatvia: 11.2% of population, 8.62% of employmentMoldova: 25.1% of population, 58.6% of employmentMadagascar: 72.6% of population, 84.4% of employmentMaldives: 13.4% of population, 16.9% of employmentMexico: 19.3% of population, 25.3% of employmentNorth Macedonia: 15.2% of population, 12.3% of employmentMali: 20.6% of population, 75.8% of employmentMalta: 9.2% of population, 10.1% of employmentMyanmar: 32.7% of population, 62.9% of employmentMontenegro: 10.4% of population, 14.3% of employmentMongolia: 4.8% of population, 38.4% of employmentMauritania: 66.3% of population, 53.3% of employmentMauritius: 31.1% of population, 14.9% of employmentMalawi: 81.7% of population, 59.9% of employmentMalaysia: 16.7% of population, 21.9% of employmentNamibia: 55.9% of population, 29.9% of employmentNiger: 50.9% of population, 83.7% of employmentNigeria: 74.8% of population, 66.5% of employmentNetherlands: 7.5% of population, 13.4% of employmentNorway: 7.8% of population, 4.17% of employmentNepal: 36.6% of population, 77% of employmentNew Zealand: 17.3% of population, 12.6% of employmentPakistan: 42.1% of population, 55.5% of employmentPeru: 41% of population, 47.5% of employmentPhilippines: 32.9% of population, 33.6% of employmentPapua New Guinea: 57.3% of population, 71.2% of employmentPoland: 3.4% of population, 15% of employmentPortugal: 11.9% of population, 9.66% of employmentParaguay: 26.2% of population, 36.1% of employmentWest Bank and Gaza: 27% of population, 18.4% of employmentRomania: 18.6% of population, 13% of employmentRussian Federation: 2.8% of population, 4.93% of employmentSenegal: 29.1% of population, 63% of employmentSingapore: 9.5% of population, 9.3% of employmentSierra Leone: 89.8% of population, 86% of employmentEl Salvador: 45.5% of population, 30.8% of employmentSomalia, Fed. Rep.: 79.5% of population, 46% of employmentSerbia: 9.5% of population, 23.9% of employmentSao Tome and Principe: 54.6% of population, 35% of employmentSuriname: 35.8% of population, 18.4% of employmentSlovak Republic: 7.5% of population, 11.8% of employmentSlovenia: 8.2% of population, 10.6% of employmentSweden: 6.9% of population, 6.87% of employmentEswatini: 59% of population, 28.4% of employmentChad: 66.3% of population, 90.2% of employmentTogo: 58.5% of population, 75% of employmentThailand: 5.4% of population, 48% of employmentTajikistan: 25.1% of population, 28% of employmentTimor-Leste: 53.7% of population, 58.6% of employmentTonga: 14.8% of population, 33.7% of employmentTrinidad and Tobago: 27.6% of population, 21.2% of employmentTunisia: 25.4% of population, 17.9% of employmentTanzania: 58% of population, 83.7% of employmentUganda: 54.6% of population, 74.4% of employmentUkraine: 32.5% of population, 19% of employmentUruguay: 16.2% of population, 24.4% of employmentUnited States: 10.3% of population, 3.81% of employmentUzbekistan: 24.4% of population, 33.3% of employmentSt. Vincent and the Grenadines: 33.3% of population, 22% of employmentViet Nam: 10.7% of population, 51.4% of employmentVanuatu: 23.3% of population, 58% of employmentSamoa: 18.6% of population, 41.6% of employmentSouth Africa: 20.7% of population, 11.7% of employmentZambia: 45.3% of population, 70.2% of employmentZimbabwe: 68.8% of population, 68.2% of employmentAREBLRBWACAFCODIDNMLIRUSSLESOMSWZTHA

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted+0.7751.0e-30147
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted+0.7751.2e-30147
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income+0.1870.024147
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income+0.1610.053147

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 147 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: +0.588 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.152 (without PSE) to +0.209 (without MLI). 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: PSE (-0.036).

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 & Pacific20+0.07
Europe & Central Asia46+0.36
Latin America & Caribbean24+0.33
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan14+0.66
Sub-Saharan Africa38+0.07

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 third49+0.32
Middle third49-0.12
Richest third49+0.37

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
Christians95+0.30
Muslims35+0.23

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
France21-0.22
Never a European colony16+0.44
Spain14+0.30
United Kingdom45+0.28

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 = +0.187 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 = +0.170, 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 vulnerable employment move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)+0.187for comparison
Within countries+0.021each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere+0.170q = 0.054 · 124 countries
Year-on-year changes+0.087q = 0.071
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.

1,035 country-years (one country in one year), 124 countries, 2015–2023, about 8 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 3% for Food insecurity, 0% for Vulnerable employment. 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 Vulnerable employment trails Food insecurity →lag -10: r = -0.007 (n = 1,038)lag -9: r = -0.016 (n = 1,038)lag -8: r = -0.016 (n = 1,038)lag -7: r = -0.016 (n = 1,038)lag -6: r = -0.006 (n = 1,038)lag -5: r = 0.024 (n = 1,038)lag -4: r = 0.081 (n = 1,038)lag -3: r = 0.130 (n = 1,038)lag -2: r = 0.153 (n = 1,038)lag -1: r = 0.161 (n = 1,037)lag +0: r = 0.170 (n = 1,035)lag +1: r = 0.182 (n = 1,031)lag +2: r = 0.161 (n = 1,019)lag +3: r = 0.087 (n = 864)lag +4: r = -0.004 (n = 727)lag +5: r = -0.118 (n = 580)lag +6: r = -0.086 (n = 475)

Same year (lag 0): +0.170. 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
% of employment		Years
Sierra Leone SLE89.8%86%2023, 2025
Central African Republic CAF88.1%79.4%2022, 2025
Haiti HTI83.2%76%2023, 2025
Malawi MWI81.7%59.9%2023, 2025
Congo, Dem. Rep. COD81.5%81.5%2023, 2025
Liberia LBR80.8%76.9%2023, 2025
Afghanistan AFG80.8%81.8%2023, 2025
Comoros COM79.7%56.8%2023, 2025
Somalia, Fed. Rep. SOM79.5%46%2021, 2025
Angola AGO78.5%66.3%2021, 2025
Nigeria NGA74.8%66.5%2023, 2025
Kenya KEN73.9%63.8%2023, 2025
Madagascar MDG72.6%84.4%2023, 2025
Burundi BDI70.8%83.7%2023, 2025
Zimbabwe ZWE68.8%68.2%2023, 2025

World Bank, World Development Indicators
World Bank, World Development Indicators

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.

Vulnerable employment

Vulnerable employment, total (% of total employment)

International Labour Organization · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly

Self-employed workers and unpaid family workers, who have no employer and usually no protection. The ILO estimates it with a model for every country and year, which is why it is complete where surveys are not.

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 Vulnerable employment

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

More links with Food insecurity or Vulnerable employment