4.6 Article

Food Insecurity Individual Experience: A Comparison of Economic and Social Characteristics of the Most Vulnerable Groups in the World

Journal

SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH
Volume 143, Issue 1, Pages 391-410

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11205-018-1975-3

Keywords

Food insecurity; Self-reported scale; Cluster analysis; Ordered logistic regression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Being at the core of sustainable growth, food insecurity is one of the most important issues in determining a country's level of development. The first aim of this paper is to compare food insecurity in different subpopulations across countries. The second goal is to assess which factors affect individual food insecurity in the world, while taking into account the level of a country's development. This has not been possible until very recently. Through the FAO Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) module of the Gallup World Poll, the same information has been collected with an identical methodology and instrument all over the world of more than 150 thousand individuals from 147 countries. Food insecurity presents marked differences depending on the level of development of the country under consideration. To take this into account, countries have been grouped together using a cluster analysis, based on the indicators from the UN Human Development Index. The model was estimated by means of an ordered logistic regression, both at the global level and for each group of countries. The model permits identification of the economic, social, and demographic characteristics related to food insecurity. Level of education, composition and number of children in the household, and location of dwellings had a significant impact on the risk of food insecurity. These results provide valuable insight into the phenomenon and can support policies aimed at ending hunger and improving the well-being of population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available