Food Security: A Global Issue

Gilliam Hill
 Hill 2

Introduction

Consider for a moment, that you live in 1997 North Korea. It is a time of disaster. Over

the past three years, the people have mourned the death of Kim Jong-Il, weathered natural

disasters, and suffered from widespread hunger. With its Songun “military first” policy, the

government has prioritized allocation of resources to the military (Powell, 2002). This policy,

while important for national security, has left the public without any government support. This

vulnerability was exposed by floods in mid-1995, which destroyed vast amounts of cropland. As

a result, food production in the nation has declined rapidly and famine has ensued. Women have

become the scapegoat of the famine, given that society expects them responsible for obtaining

food (Smith, 2002). Children, however, are feeling most effected by the circumstances; the child

mortality rate has risen to 93 out of every 1000 (World Health Organization, 2016). Compared to

the modern rate of 6 out of every 1000, the severity of the situation soon becomes evident

(World Health Organization, 2016). These facts are not entirely unique either. Other nations such

as Somalia, Niger, Ethiopia, and Cambodia have all experienced famine in recent years. The

amount of food available, however, does not match with these facts. Food scarcity is not a

relevant cause of these deaths. Even at this point in history, the world has been producing enough

food to feed every single person on the planet (Baker et al., 1998). Given this knowledge, the

question must be asked: why is food security still an issue in a food abundant world?

Food security defines the state of having reliable access to sufficient food, both in

calories and nutrition. This idea rose in the late twentieth century, in response to an international

food supply crisis. Under the support of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN

created the first World Food Conference in 1973 (United Nations, 2016). Eleven months later,

the Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition was adopted by all the
 Hill 3

nations who attend the conference (United Nations, 2016). The conference and declaration

signaled the birth of the term “food security”, and has since grown in its usage. The declaration

states that, “Every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and

malnutrition in order to develop fully and maintain their physical and mental faculties” (United

Nations, 2016). This idea departs from prior concepts of security because it focuses on the

individual well-being of a nation’s citizens, rather than the well-being of society as a whole. This

dichotomy gave rise to an entirely new field dedicated to studying how nations maximize this

individual well-being, what prevents nations from attaining it, and policies to remedy the

problem of food insecurity. Food security experts have often used case or regional analysis in

order to study this problem, which is where this paper seeks to shed some light. The goal of this

paper is to employ a multivariate linear regression on a world scale to shed some light on

potential solutions for achieving international food security.

The rest of this paper proceeds in several sections. The first section is a literature review

where key findings of prior research lend valuable insights. Among these are conclusions that

scholars agree upon, issues they disagree upon, and areas where future research would be

possible. The second section explains the methods of the multivariate linear regression

employed. This section defines that data collected, explaining why certain variables were used in

the statistical analysis. This methods section also builds the theoretical framework behind the

linear model, providing the hypotheses that will be tested. The third section exhibits the

statistical findings of the linear model. This section allows the reader to review the results of the

model without commentary. The fourth section provides commentary on the data in the previous

section. The conclusions made in this section reflect both the theoretical framework built in the

methods section and the results of testing the linear model. The final section highlights the
 Hill 4

implications of the conclusions in the previous section. This section will relate these conclusions

to international relations, and provide recommendations to the issue of food security.

Literature Review

According to many authors, food security revolves around the issue of accessibility, not

availability. In other words, most researchers agree that there is enough food to feed the world,

but the individual’s inability to buy this food promotes food insecurity. Despite a world surplus

of food, hunger persists because food distribution among society; some people have easier access

to food than others (Scanlan, 2010). Kent writes, “Malnutrition generally results not from a lack

of food in the community, but from the skewed distribution of food that is available” (2005, p.

21). Baker et al. find that food security depends more on demand than supply, because there is

enough food being produced to feed the world (1998). Cook, Hammerschlag and Klein recognize

that the world already produces enough food to feed everyone, but that the problem is

distribution not availability (2016). Likewise, Fosu and Heerink claim that food prices determine

whether people will go hungry, because food is both available and inaccessible for families in

poverty (1996). In other words, families in poverty suffer from food insecurity not because food

is unavailable, but because it is inaccessible (Fosu and Heerink, 1996). Krishnaraj agrees, noting

how the resources at an individual’s disposal determine that individual’s capacity to buy food

(2005). Krishnaraj’s claim harkens back to the problem of access, not availability of food. Like

Krishnaraj and others, Lappe and Collins describe food security as not a problem of availability

but access by dispelling world hunger myths (2015). One such myth is the idea that there is too

little food and too many people to feed. Lappe and Collins clearly show how this cannot be the

case, and instead highlight access as a cause of food insecurity. This idea permeates Sen’s

writing as well. He points out that people die in famine not from hunger, but because they lack
 Hill 5

access to food (Sen, 1981). Waldman provides a clear example of Sen’s argument. She describes

how Indians living in poverty starve while food surpluses rot (Waldman, 2002).Even non-

scholarly sources align with the aforementioned descriptions. The Economist details how the

world produces enough food to feed everyone, and that the issue does not rest solely upon

availability (2011).

Another widespread agreement between researchers exists within the relationship

between democracies and famine. Sen was the first to observe that functioning democracies do

not suffer from famine when compared to non-democracies (1981). He notes that the separating

factors between democracy’s food security success and non-democracy’s failure are civil rights

and a free press (Sen, 1981). Sen claims that these two democratic features drive government

accountability. Flowers agrees, describing how Ethiopia suffered from famine under the Derg

regime, a Communist military junta. She uses this example to illustrate how accountability as a

feature of democracy prevents famine (2015). Hendrix and Haggard conduct statistical analysis

that reveals more riots and protests occur in democracies than autocracies in response to rising

food prices (2015). Their research directly supports the idea that a free press holds democratic

governments accountable to the people. While making the case for spreading democracy, Lynn-

Jones argues that it prevents famine (1998). He uses many examples of nondemocratic countries

(Ukraine, China, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia, and Sudan) experiencing famine to support his

claim. Lynn-Jones cites the free flow of information, specifically from a free press, as the reason

why democratic governments are held accountable to the people (1998).

A third agreement among authors is the idea that poverty and food security are closely

related. Scanlan writes, “…poverty is inseparable from hunger and should be considered its

primary root cause” (2010, p. 36). Scanlan further elaborates, claiming inequality of any kind
 Hill 6

causes hunger and poverty. Bezemer and Headey, like Scanlan, see a relationship between

poverty and food security. They observe, however, that the former can be used as a solution for

the former. Bezemer and Headey claim that investment in agriculture will best combat world

poverty (2008). They base this on their observation of urban bias, which is the inclination

towards urban investment over rural investment (Bezemer and Headey, 2008). Like Bezemer and

Headey, Timmer maintains that food security can only be achieved by tying the agricultural

sector to food security, for the purpose of alleviating poverty (2015). He points to the 2008

market crash and the lack of food crisis in Asia as an example. Fosu and Heerink highlight how

family income affects ability to purchase food; lower income (poverty) means that families

cannot access food (1996). Simply put, their observation illustrates how poverty stricken families

cannot gain food security.

A final conclusion shared among writers is the positive effects women have in the food

security process. Blair writes how Democratic Local Governance (DLG) effectively targets

development goals at the local level (2000). He also notes that as a consequence of DLG, women

are often empowered to take a more active role in this local development (2000). His writing

highlights the positive role women play in local development goals, such as food security.

Therefore, he reasonably concludes that when women are more active in food security,

universalistic development goals at the local level are achievable. Cook, Hammerschlag and

Klein recommend increasing the rights of women in a democratizing food markets (2016). Their

prescription aligns with Blair’s observation, because they also see the positive effect women

have on food security. Lappe agrees, using the Deccan Development Society (DDS) as example

for democratized food security (2013). The DDS, a network of over 5,000 women across seventy

Indian villages, builds food security for many through collaboration, creativity, and sharing of
 Hill 7

best use practices (2013). According to Lappe, the DDS serves as a model that food insecure

societies should emulate (2013). Indeed, it would seem that thus far, many scholars agree on

several issues of food security. Finding a single solution, however, remains a point of

controversy.

Finding a sole solution to food insecurity seems to be an area of controversy among

experts. Despite all the agreements over food insecurity’s root cause, its relationship with

democracy or poverty, or the role of women, many academics disagree on its solution. Zeidan

claims that food security depends upon economic government intervention (2016). He notes the

importance of government investment, when it is allocated appropriately towards agricultural

development. Specifically, he presumes that agricultural investment is the best source of

decreasing poverty and malnutrition (Zeidan, 2016). Kent argues that governments have an

obligation to secure food security. He outlines four ways that governments must intervene: (1)

Not taking away cropland, (2) lending aid, (3) strengthening the economy and job growth, and

(4) providing food when disasters strike (Kent, 2005). Contrarily, Ramesh claims that “It’s

[Indian food security] not an economic issue anymore – it’s a straightforward political issue

(Waldman, 2002). Unlike the African story told by Zeidan, Ramesh’s Indian account illustrates

how food insecurity arises when politics interfere with the flow of agricultural products

(Waldman, 2002). The Indian case demonstrates that when governments use monetary power for

political purposes, inefficiency can arise that agitates inherent income inequalities; federal

subsidies supporting political allies in the agricultural sector raises food prices, which affects

everyone. Dissimilar to the above mentioned arguments, Aggidis et al. argue that food security

arises mostly from waste (2013). They outline how food is wasted in production, storage, and

market access backed by statistical evidence. They claim that solving this waste problem
 Hill 8

revolves around three recommendations: (1) Shared engineering knowledge, (2) incorporation of

waste minimization in transport and storage, and (3) change consumer expectations. In total, they

argue that food insecurity can be solved by supranational intervention and international

cooperation. The disagreements continue with Cook et al., who attack food security from an

environmental lens. Cook et al. prescribe public investment in agroecological farming, which

strives for sustainable farming. This method does not harm the environment and therefore will

not hinder food production for latter generations (Cook et al.., 2016). Because agroecology is

generally practiced by small to mid-sized farmers, empowering them will help solve the

inequalities within the food production system (Cook et al.., 2016). Other scholars disagree and

highlight other ways that food security can be attained. Sen claims that famines can be prevented

when the government provides public goods (1981). Quite simply, Sen claims that most famines

occur when the national government fails to provide public goods that would otherwise help

prevent famine; farmers need usable roads to transport produce to market and farmers need

reservoirs to draw water when droughts strike (1981).

As noted above, a single solution towards food insecurity remains ambiguous. A factor of

this research gap lies within the methodological approach. None of the research discussed has

tested food security on the global scale. While some researchers such as Sen or Fosu and Heerink

consider food security in regions such as Asia and Africa, there remains a gap in testing across

the world community. Another area of ambiguity rests in the interplay of different themes of

food security. How regime type and socioeconomic inequality affect food security, or how these

two variables affect one another remains unknown. This forms the research question of this

paper; how does government regime type and socioeconomic inequality affect food security

across the world? This question will lend an invaluable perspective to the issue of food security.
 Hill 9

It will illustrate a broader picture, one that includes all nations not just those suffering from food

insecurity. By including all nations, the key differences between food secure and food insecure

nations will arise. These differences will illuminate the mystery of solving food insecurity.

Methods

This model pursues explanation of food security through a multivariable linear regression

analysis. The independent variables employed measure government regime type, the individual’s

accessibility to food, and women’s empowerment. As discussed in the literature review, these

three concepts have all been observed to have an effect on levels of food security. The dependent

variable employed measures food security, the subject of this study. The following section will

define each variable and rationalize why each accurately represents its intended measure.

The regime type of a state’s government greatly affects the lives of its citizens. By

definition, citizens under a democratic regime enjoy a more representative form of government.

Written in law, this representation aims at making the voice of the public match the voice of the

government. Contrarily, the laws of an authoritarian government do not require it to represent its

citizens. As discussed before, many different authors have observed the importance of regime

type in preventing famines; the general consensus maintains that democracies do not suffer from

famines as severely as nondemocracies, if at all. In order to quantify this disparity, two different

sources are employed to measure the type of a government’s regime. Statistics from the Polity

Project and Freedom House included.

Polity Project (Polity) studies global levels of democracy at the state level. Polity ranks

states on a scale of -10 to 10 (Marshall and Jaggers, 2002). Scores of -6 or lower are considered

autocratic, while scores of 6 or higher label countries as democratic. Any score between -5 and 5

are defined as anoncracies, neither truly democratic nor autocratic. To arrive at these scores,
 Hill 10

Polity uses six different variables. These variables include measures of how the chief executive

of a state is selected, the restraints placed on the chief executive, and the political competition

within a country ((Marshall and Jaggers, 2002). These six variables all measure a state’s political

institutions, rather than look at individual citizens. In other words, the Polity score a state is more

representative of how the political processes within a country promote or deter democracy. The

same cannot be said for Freedom House scores.

Like Polity, the international watchdog organization Freedom House analyzes levels of

democracy in the world. Freedom House, however, diverges from Polity in three ways: (1) its

methodological approach, (2) its coding, and (3) its produced variable. (1) Freedom House’s

methodological approach considers the individual citizen, rather than a state’s institutions. Polity

measures and compares countries based upon the degree of freedom given to each individual

citizen. This method diverges from the Polity method mentioned before because it codes

countries based upon individual freedoms, not institutional constraints. (2) Freedom House codes

its national scores from 1 to 7, where 1 represents the greatest amount of freedom while 7

represents the least amount of freedom (Freedom House, 2016). This means that more free and

democratic countries will have a lower Freedom House score, while more restricted and

autocratic countries will have a higher Freedom House score. (3) Freedom House, unlike Polity,

produces two variables measuring the level of democracy within a state; political rights and civil

liberties. The former arises from the rating of three subcategories: (1) electoral process, (2)

political pluralism and participation, and (3) functioning of government (Freedom House, 2016).

The latter comes from ratings of four subcategories: (1) freedom of expression and belief, (2)

associational and organization rights, (3) rule of law, and (4) personal autonomy and individual

rights (Freedom House, 2016). In summary, “political rights” represents the institution’s
 Hill 11

relationship with freedom, while “civil liberties” represents the individual citizens’ relationship

with freedom.

This research employs both Freedom House and Polity because of their ubiquity and

differences. Polity, unlike Freedom House, does not cover states that have a population smaller

than 500,000 (Marshall and Jaggers, 2002). Countries such as Iceland, Malta, Brunei, or Belize

are excluded. This equates to fewer observations in the Polity model than the Freedom House

Model, because of the states with smaller populations. Additionally, both measurements

approach the variable of regime type from different methodological positions. While Polity does

not consider the individual aspect, Freedom House covers this gap. Likewise, Freedom House

does not focus on the institutions of a state, while Polity does. Each measurement provides

insight in ways that the other does not. As a result, two models arise with either Freedom House

or Polity as a measurement for the initial independent variable. Despite this initial difference,

both models employ the same variable measuring the accessibility of the individual.

Another concept of food security resides in the concept of accessibility versus

availability. This concept harkens back to the fact that while the world has enjoyed a food

surplus for many decades, people still go hungry. Many scholars have explained this dichotomy

by acknowledging that peoples suffering from food insecurity often do not have the economic

power to buy food. Whether due to external market forces or internal government policies, food

insecurity often comes down to whether or not people have enough money to sustain themselves.

In order to quantify the individual’s accessibility to food, this model uses the Gross Domestic

Product per Capita (GDPPC) of countries observed.

The GDPPC of a state represents that state’s economic power distributed amongst its

population. Simply put, this number is the GDP of a country divided by its population. A state’s
 Hill 12

GDP (often used as synonym for that state’s economic power) equals the total gross monetary

value of production within a country over a certain time period. Most often, this time period

spans a single year. As a measurement, GDPPC is represented in U.S. dollars. This statistic

includes only what a country produces domestically, and does not include the monetary value of

goods or service that are imported. Because of how it is measured, GDP is often associated as a

measurement of a state’s economic power. The GDPPC of a country takes this domestic

production value and divides it by its population. In shorthand terms, a state’s GDPPC represents

its citizens’ quality of life. Consequently, GDPPC also indicates citizens’ individual wealth or

economic well-being. With this in mind, the connection between GDPPC and food security

becomes readily apparent.

This model employs GDPPC because it represents the buying power of an individual.

The data for this variable was obtained from the World Bank, an international financial

institution. As mentioned in the accessibility versus availability argument, people often go

hungry not because of food shortage, but because they cannot afford to sustain themselves.

GDPPC represents the economic power of a state divided amongst its population. This indicates

how well off each individual is within a state, and provides an easy comparison between states of

the average individual’s economic well-being. The notion that a country’s GDP accurately

represents its economic power remains widely accepted, because it looks only at what that

country produces domestically. While GDPPC is widely accepted as an individual’s economic

power, an accepted measurement of women’s impact on food security remains ambiguous.

The final independent variable of this research is women’s empowerment. Unlike the

aforementioned variables, women’s empowerment does not have a measurement as widely

accepted as Polity or Freedom House for regime type, or GDPPC for a state’s individual quality
 Hill 13

of life. The importance, however, of quantifying what many authors agree upon remains

important. Many authors agree that when women become empowered, the effects of food

insecurity diminish. When women play a more active and decision-making role in food security

less people go hungry. This is due to the fact that women already constitute the majority of

people both working in the agricultural sector, and the majority of those affected by food

insecurity. In order to quantify this variable, women’s literacy is used.

In order to quantify women’s education, this model uses women’s literacy based upon the

premises of modernization theory. This measurement represents the overall education of women

within a country, and therefore accurately depicts women’s empowerment. A central theory of

international relations – the theory of modernization – upholds this claim. Modernization theory,

in summary, describes every state as resting along a journey that can be defined by certain social

phenomena. First, as a state acquires new technologies, industries grow rapidly in cities as

people migrate from the agricultural sector to the industrial sector. As a result of this

industrialization and urbanization, people find themselves with more free time living in cities.

They then educate themselves, which in turn leads to higher levels of political participation.

Political participation, in the end, engenders democracy. The middle part of this theory, the idea

that education leads to more political participation, holds some importance for food security.

When people become more educated, they often become more empowered. This directly applies

to women regarding the issue of food security. As many authors have discussed, when women

become empowered, the effects of food insecurity diminish. Women’s empowerment is

represented by female literacy rates, which is measured as a percentage of the total female

population in. Simply put, this percentage is computed by dividing the literate population of

women by the total population of women within a country. The data used in this research was
 Hill 14

obtained from the IndexMundi, a website that compiles data from various sources such as the

CIA Factbook and the World Bank.

The dependent variable of this model contains the concept of food security. The rate of

deaths due to malnutrition captures this concept. This measurement is used for two reasons: (1)

malnutrition is a fundamental effect of food insecurity, (2) it does not require active famines and

(3) it controls for the population size of countries. First, malnutrition and food insecurity could

be considered synonyms. By definition, food insecurity leads to malnutrition. When a person

fails to get enough food or fails to get the proper nutrients, malnutrition soon follows (World

Food Programme, 2016). Thus, the line is clearly drawn connecting food insecurity and the

number of individuals dying from malnutrition. Second, it provides data for states not currently

experiencing famine. Much of the prior research studied specific famines or famines in general,

which limits itself to the times and places that famines occur. Using malnutrition deaths as an

indicator for food security provides for easy analysis of all states, regardless of whether or not

they suffer from famine. Third, the population of each country must be controlled when

considering food security. This statistic, unlike GDP, is a rate that accounts for the total

population of each country observed. Too many problems would arise from simply comparing

state to state, such as comparing China to Guatemala. Instead, deaths per 100,000 people afford

the opportunity to compare countries regardless of total population size. Numerically this makes

sense for easy comparison.

The three independent variables, regime type, individual accessibility, and women’s

empowerment are represented by Freedom House/Polity, GDDPC, and female literacy rates. The

dependent variable of food security is captured by the deaths due to malnutrition per 100,000
 Hill 15

people. The section below contains the data results from both the Polity and Freedom House

Models, followed by a section providing an interpretation of the data.

Data

Table 1. Effects on deaths due to Malnutrition per 100,000 people in 2014 (Polity Model).

Model Model Model Model

Variable
1 2 3 4

-0.53 -0.29 -0.11

Polity
(0.29) (0.28) (0.22)

-0.00* 0.00
GDPPC
(0.00) (0.00)

Female -0.72* -0.73*

Literacy (0.07) (0.06)

Adjusted R2 0.01 0.10 0.46 0.47

N 165 165 165 172
Note: * indicates p < 0.05
Note: Coefficients are OLS estimates.
Note: Correlation tests indicate r < 0.5
 Hill 16

Table 2. Effects on deaths due to Malnutrition per 100,000 people in 2014 (Freedom House model).

Model Model Model Model

Variable
1 2 3 4

5.65* 5.31* 3.05 1.63*

Civil Liberties
(-2.26) (-2.23) (-1.79) (0.68)

Political -1.24 -1.93 -1.52

Rights (-2.32) (-2.29) (-1.82)

-0.00* 0.00
GDPPC
(0.00) (0.00)

Female -0.68* -0.67*

Literacy
0.07 0.06

Adjusted R2 0.15 0.18 0.48 0.48

N 172 172 172 172
Note: * indicates p < 0.05
Note: Coefficients are OLS estimates.
Note: Correlation tests indicate r < 0.5 with the exception of the two Freedom House variables: Civil Liberties
and Political Rights.
 Hill 17

Results

Based on linear regression analysis, several observations arise. First, state’s political

regime has little to no effect on deaths due to malnutrition. They only noteworthy effect rests in a

state’s Civil Liberties, which demonstrate a positive coefficient. Second, the effect of GDPPC on

deaths due to malnutrition reveals muddled results. Its statistical significance changes

substantially between regression models. Third, female literacy rates are both statistically

significant and describe the most variance. Finally, it should be noted that a majority of the states

suffering from food insecurity reside in the African continent.

A state’s political regime has very little to do with its food security. As demonstrated in

the data, a state’s polity score holds no descriptive power. The effect of polity scores on

malnutrition deaths fails to exhibit statistical significance; In models one, two, and three, the

polity variable had a p-value that was greater than 0.05.Likewise, a state’s Political Rights score

(Freedom House) has no descriptive power, because the effect of political rights on deaths due to

malnutrition fails to display statistical significance. The only noteworthy aspect of political

regime rests in Civil Liberties (Freedom House). The regression analysis reveals that the effect

of Civil Liberties on malnutrition deaths is statistically significant. Upon closer inspection, this

statistically significant effect has a positive coefficient, indicating that an increase in the

independent variable (Civil Liberties) results in an increase in the independent variable

(malnutrition deaths). In other words, less freedom in Civil Liberties leads to more deaths due to

malnutrition. This observation affirms common sense, considering that the Civil Liberties

variable measures the individual’s political empowerment rather than the restraints placed on

political institutions.
 Hill 18

As a whole, however, the statistical insignificance of political regime indicates that the

type of government cannot be used as an indicator of food security. This runs contrary to the

aforementioned authors who claimed that there remains a distinct difference between

democracies and non-democracies when discussing food security (Sen, 1981; Flowers, 2015;

Hendrix & Haggard, 2015; Lynn-Jones, 1998). A possible explanation is that malnutrition, while

related to food security, should not be substituted for famine as this research does. While past

research in general has commented on the issue of famine, this paper’s research reveals no causal

relationship between political regime and malnutrition.

Unlike political regime, GDPPC’s exhibits ambiguous results. The effect of GDPPC on

malnutrition deaths changes between models two and three in its statistical significance. In

model two, the effect of GDPPC on malnutrition deaths shows statistical significance.

Investigating further, this statistically significant effect displays a negative coefficient, indicating

that as the independent variable (GDPPC) increases, the dependent variable (malnutrition deaths)

decreases. In model three, however, the effect of GDPPC on malnutrition deaths fails to contain

statistical significance. Here, the effect of GDPPC on malnutrition death holds not causal

explanatory power.

Based upon this analysis, one of two following statements must be true: either (a)

GDPPC either does not accurately capture the individual’s access to food, (b) or the individual’s

accessibility to food cannot explain food security. The former is more likely to be true than the

latter. As discussed, other research has indicated that accessibility, not availability, holds more

importance for determining food security (Scanlan, 2010; Kent, 2005; Baker et al., 1998; Cook,

Hammerschlag, & Klein, 2016; Fosu & Heerink, 1996; Krishnaraj, 2005; Lappe & Collins, 2015;

Sen, 1981; Waldman, 2002; The Economist, 2011). Despite an overabundance of food in the
 Hill 19

world, food insecurity still persists. Thus, the individual’s ability to access food remains

fundamentally important for establishing food security. The data for GDPPC, however, appears

problematic considering its volatility between individual and multivariate regression analysis. It

must be assumed then, that GDPPC does not accurately represent an individual’s ability to

access food. This presents an area for future research; finding an accurate measure of an

individual’s access to food should be the focus of future research; employing indicators such as

transportation that measure how easily food can get to market.

Female empowerment plays the largest role in determining food security in this model. It

holds potent descriptive strength and supports this research’s hypothesis; higher levels of female

empowerment not only correlate but causally explain food security. Its explanatory power should

not be understated; not only does it explain nearly half of the variance in malnutrition rates, but it

describes more variance alone than the other independent variables combined. In models three

and four, the variable’s p value remains less than 0.05, an indication of statistical significance.

This statistically significant effect held a negative coefficient; as female literacy rates increase,

the number of deaths due to malnutrition decrease. In addition, the effect of female literacy on

malnutrition deaths describes by far the most variance among deaths due to malnutrition.

Compared to the above mentioned variables, female literacy has the largest R squared value. In

the individual model, the effect of female literacy describes forty seven percent of the variance.

Finally, a note must be made towards the geographic location of the observed deaths due

to malnutrition. Much of the food insecurity observed occurs within the African Continent.

Figure (1) reveals the concentration of malnutrition deaths within the center of Africa.
 Hill 20

Figure 1. World map of malnutrition death rates in 2014.

Implications

The political regime of a state holds no explanatory power for food security. Similarly,

GDPPC fails to accurately capture the access of the individual to food, and therefore cannot be

used when discussing food security. Female empowerment, however, reveals the most telling

story in this research. Female empowerment provides the most effect way to combat food

insecurity. Based on these observations two important considerations must drive future actions to

fight food insecurity: (1) the location, and (2) the mechanism.

Future actions to fight food insecurity must be located in Africa. An overwhelming

prevalence of food insecurity occurs in Africa. As shown in figure (1), the states most affected
 Hill 21

by malnutrition are in the African continent. All of the states most affected by malnutrition exist

in Africa; the top thirty eight states with the highest malnutrition death rates are African. Forty

two of the top fifty states most affected by malnutrition are African. Again, Africa suffers the

most from food insecurity. Therefore, future efforts for fighting food insecurity must directly

focus on this region of the world.

The future mechanism of combatting food insecurity resides in empowering women.

Based on the results, educational development rather than economic aid forms the best

mechanism for defeating malnutrition. This contrasts contemporary practices, where the

international community has funneled aid into agricultural or economic development. These

results imply that instead of sending money into development, states should instead look toward

empowering those who make up a majority of both the agricultural work force and those affected

by food insecurity. As others have aptly stated, “Women are the key human ingredient to

adequate diets for families. As such, their voices should be sought after, listened to, and acted

upon” (Bertini, 2016). Female empowerment constitutes the most effective method in

combatting food insecurity. Education comprises the mechanism for enacting this change. This

claim not only this paper’s research, but the work of others as well (Bertini, 2016).

Women are the key to ending food insecurity. They comprise the group most affected by

the issue, but also play the biggest role in bringing about change. A decrease in deaths due to

malnutrition will come about only through improving female literacy and further educating

women, especially those living in central Africa.

 Hill 22

References

Aggidis, George, Ian Arbon, Colin Brown, Charles Clarke, John Earp, Tim Fox, et al. (2013).

Global Food: Waste Not Want Not. Retrieved from https://www.imeche.org/docs/default-

source/default-document-library/global-food---waste-not-want-not.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Baker, Richard, William Bender, F. Bernardo A., Arthur Getz, Dru Gladney, Chris Johnstone,

Sue Lautze, et al. (1998). FOOD SECURITY AND POLITICAL STABILITY IN THE

ASIA-PACIFIC REGION. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.

Bertini, Catherine (2015). Invisible Women. Daedalus, the American Journal of the American

Academy of Arts & Sciences. Retrieved from

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/InvisibleWomen_Daedalus_Bertini.

pdf

Bezemer, Dirk & Derek Headey (2008) Agriculture, development, and urban bias. World

Development 36(8): 1342–1364.

Blair, Harry (2000). Participation and Accountability at the Periphery: Democratic Local

Governance in Six Countries. World Development, 28 (1) 21-39.

Cook, Christopher D., Kari Hamerschlag, and Kendra Klein (2016). Farming for the Future:

Organic and Agroecological Solutions to Feed the World Friends of the Earth. Retrieved

from http://www.db.zs-intern.de/uploads/1466576808-

FOE_Farming_for_the_Future_Final.pdf

Flowers, Kimberly (2015) Human Rights, Democracy Building, and Food Security. Center for

Strategic & International Studies. Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/human-

rights-democracy-building-and-food-security
 Hill 23

Freedom House (2016). Freedom in the World Methodology. Freedom House. Retrieved from

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2016/methodology

Fosu, K. Yerfi, and Nico Heerink. (1996). Policy Reform: The Social Dimension. University of

Ghana: Department of Agricultural Economics. Retrieved from

https://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/ecru/documents/TF5M4D08.pdf

Hendrix, Cullen and Stephan Haggard (2015). Global food prices, regime type, and urban unrest

in the developing world. Journal of Peace Research 52 (2) 143-157.

How Much Is Enough? (2011, February 24). The Economist. Retrieved from

http://www.economist.com/node/18200702

Kent, George (2005). Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food. Washington,

D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Krishnaraj, Maithreyi (2005). Food Security: How and For Whom? Economic & Political

Weekly 40 (25) 2508-2512.

Lappe, Frances Moore, and Joseph Collins (2015). World Hunger: Ten Myths. Institute for Food

and Development Policy 21(2).

Lappe, Frances Moore (2013, January 25). What India Taught Me About How To End Hunger.

Yes! Magazine. http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/ending-hunger-how-communities-

are-taking-life-into-their-own-hands

Lynn-Jones, Sean M. (1998). Why the United States Should Spread Democracy. Belfer Center

for Science and International Affairs Discussion Paper 98-07.

Marshall, Monty G. and Keith Jaggers (2002). POLITY IV PROJECT Political Regime

Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2002 Dataset Users’ Manual. Integrated Network

for Societal Conflict Research Program Center for International Development and
 Hill 24

Conflict Management. University of Maryland. Retrieved from

http://www3.nd.edu/~mcoppedg/crd/PolityIVUsersManualv2002.pdf

Powell, John. May 2, 2002. Testimony to the Sub-committee on East Asia and the Pacific of the

US House of Representatives. Special Report, North East Asia Peace and Security

Network.

Scanlan, Stephen J. (2010). The Scarcity Fallacy. Contexts 9 (1) 34-39.

Sen, Amartya. (1981). Poverty and Famine an Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. New

York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, Hazel. 1999. WFP DPRK Programmes and Activities: A Gender Perspective. Pyongyang:

WFP, December 1999.

Timmer, Peter C. (2015) Learning to Manage Food Security: A Policy Perspective. In Food

Security and Scarcity (30-51). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

United Nations. (2016). Universal Declaration of the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition.

Retrieved from

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/EradicationOfHungerAndMalnutriti

on.aspx

Waldman, Amy (2002, December 2). Poor in India Starve as Surplus Wheat Rots. The New York

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/02/world/poor-in-india-starve-

as-surplus-wheat-rots.html

World Health Organization Global Health Observatory Data. (2016). Life tables by country:

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Retrieved from

http://apps.who.int/gho/data/?theme=main&vid=60440
 Hill 25

World Food Programme (2016) What Is Malnutrition? United Nations World Food Programme -

Fighting Hunger Worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.wfp.org/hunger/malnutrition.

Zeidan, Sam (2016). How Can Food Security in Africa Be Achieved? Aljazeera. Retrieved from

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2016/09/food-security-africa-

achieved-160907193537110.html