




































Economy 
ISSN: 2313-8181 
Vol. 1, No. 2, 32-36, 2014 
www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/Economy 

 
 

 

 

  

 

32 

 

Basic Food and Health Security: A Cross Country Look 
 

William R. DiPietro
1 

 
1
Professor of Economics Daemen College USA  

 

Abstract 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License 

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

1. Introduction 
For human beings, as well as other life forms, nothing is more important than survival. The physical bodies in 

which are souls dwell are very vulnerable and extremely demanding. They are readily subject to disease and illness, 

to life changing accidents and attacks from others, and constantly require food and water for operation and 

maintenance. Before higher level needs come into play, and individuals can differentiate themselves to live 

meaningful and productive lives and become truly human, they must have real security with regard to attainment of 

their basic and fundamental needs.  

The purpose of this paper is to consider some of the reasons that may account for differences in food security, 

health security, and general social security across countries. It is hypothesized that the main drivers of basic security 

attainment in a country are the level of economic development and the amount of actual democracy. 

The paper is divided into five sections. The first section reviews some of the recent articles on basic human 

needs security. The second section provides a little model of basic human needs security. The third section identifies 

the sources of the variables that are used in the regression analysis. The fourth section presents, discusses, and 

analyzes the results of cross country regressions that look at food security, health security, and overall social security. 

The final section wraps-up the article and provides a few policy suggestions. 

 

1.1. Some Recent Literature 
Minkler and Sweeney maintain that human rights are essentially interdependent and indivisible (Minkler and 

Shawna, 2011). In their article, they provide a comprehensive literature review of the empirical studies of the 

determinants  of human rights and develop a composite  human rights index based on both subsistence and security 

rights. They use the index as a dependent variable in regressions on a sample of developing countries for cross 

section and pooled cross section data for the years 1997 to 2005. In the regressions, after adjusting for population 

size, and for internal and international conflict, they consider wealth, legal origins, democracy, globalization, and 

endorsement of international covenants as potential drivers of basic human rights. They find that GDP per capita is a 

strong predictor of human rights, that different measures of democracy are relevant, that trade openness matters, but 

not foreign direct investment, and that endorsement of international covenants may have some bearing. 

Assuming, in line with the United Nations, that governments truly have food security as a goal, Adeyemi, ljaiya, 

ljaiya, and ljaiya discuss various ways in which national governments can increase food security (Adyemi et al., 

2009). Among others, they feel that these should include the creation of an environment in which individuals are able 

to provide for their own food needs, and for the provision of food in emergencies. The authors also consider potential 

determinants of food security by running a single regression for food security on a large number of regressors 

(fourteen) for forty eight countries in Sub-Saharan Africa for 2003. Surprisingly, their regression indicates that 

higher population leads to greater access to food, and, using a dummy variable for the presence of democratic values, 

that democratic values seem to have a negative effect on food access. 

This paper uses cross country regression analysis to see whether the level of economic 

development and the extent of democracy are prime determinants of basic food, health, and 

general social security. It also considers whether the size of government and globalization 

matter, and, if so, whether positively or negatively, for the fundamental security needs of 

people. The findings of the paper indicate that both development and democracy are positive 

forces for the fulfillment of basic human security needs. 
 
Keywords: Food security, Heath security, Overall social security, Level of economic development, Democracy, Productivity 

growth. 

 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/


Economy, 2014, 1(2): 32-36 

 

 

 

 

33 

 

Misselhorn does a meta-analysis on forty-nine local household case studies for southern Africa (Misselhorn, 

2004). Her study  not only tries to identify food security drivers,  but also the extent a driver's impact is on food 

access versus production, and whether  a driver is short-term as opposed to long-term or chronic .  She finds that 

environmental conditions and poverty are the two most frequently cited direct drivers of food insecurity in the case 

studies, that seventeen drivers account for the eighty percent of the total direct driver citations in the case studies, and 

that poverty, environmental conditions, and social conflict are important indirect drivers of food insecurity.  

With regard to health security, Headey focuses on socioeconomic variables to explain changes in malnutrition in 

countries over time (Headey, 2012). Employing a •cross section of countries that treats each Indian state as a country, 

and using the change in stunting over a five year period as the dependent variable .in his regressions, his empirical 

analysis shows that economic growth, growth in food production, asset accumulation, greater female education, and 

reduced fertility appear to be statistically significant factors for reducing stunting. 

De Muro and Burchi hypothesize a relationship between food security of rural people in poor countries, the 

category of people most vulnerable to food insecurity, and the extent of their education (De Muro and Francesco, 

2007).    

 They create two indices of food security based on different weighting of survival, nutritional, and female 

malnutrition status, and use household survey data on forty eight developing countries, from surveys conducted for 

different years for different countries from 1995 to 2004, for their statistical analysis. In their regressions they find 

that primary education, school attendance of rural children aged six to ten, is a key determinant of rural food security 

for rural people in poor countries, and that, two of their control variables, assets and sanitation are also important. 

Akramov, Yu, and Fan test the notions that mountain countries, mountainous environments, are more subject to food 

insecurity, and that food security in mountains countries is more sensitive to external shocks (Akramov et al., 2010). 

In their empirical analysis using an unbalance panel consisting of one hundred thirty two developing countries, they 

employ daily per capita calorie intake as a measure of food insecurity, and find support for both propositions. Their 

regressions show that a whole host of variables, road density, income per capita, population, arable land per capita, 

and percentage of trade to GDP have a positive and significant effect on food security, but that ethnic 

fractionalization has a negative effect. Their Chow tests on the parameters of the various explanatory variables 

indicate that, in general, mountainous countries food security is more responsive to individual determinants of food 

security than non-mountainous countries . 

Sekhampu uses binary logistic regression on survey data for an individual township in South Africa from a 

survey he conducts in 2012, and finds that household size has a negative effect on food security, household income, 

age of head of household, and gender (female head of household) have positive effects, and that education does not 

seem to matter (Sekhampu, 2013). 

Jeanty and Hitzhusen concentrate their efforts on estimating the potential effect of civil wars and conflicts on food 

security (Jeanty and Fred, 2006). Their regressions of battle deaths per thousand (their measure of conflict) on food 

security on a panel of seventy three countries from 1970 through 2002 show a negative and significant effect of 

conflict on food security when using instrumental variables to account for simultaneity bias. 

 

2. A Model for Basic Security Satisfaction 
The model consists of an individual equation with the same functional form for each basic security. 

The equation is as follows. 

s = f(E,D, C)  δS/δ E>O, δS/ δ     D>O 

In the equation, S designates a basic security such as food security, health security, or overall social security, E 

stands for the level of economic development, D is the amount of democracy, and C for a set of control variables.  In 

words, the model simply states that the fulfillment of a basic security need depends  on the level of economic  

development, the extent of democracy, and a set of control variables, and that security in a need is positively related 

to level of economic development  and the extent of democracy . 

Two things are likely to be vital for determining the extent that basic security needs are met in a country. The 

first is the ability of a country to provide for the needs of its citizens. The second is the will or desire of those having 

command over resources in a country (those who are in power) to provide these needs. 

Countries with higher levels of economic development have a greater productive capacity, and therefore a greater 

ability to care for their peoples. Thus it is expected that higher levels of economic development, ceteris paribus, lead 

to greater food and health security. 

The form of government, on the other hand, is what really matters with regard to country leaders making 

decisions that are in line with the needs of ordinary people in a country. The more democratic a country is, the 

greater the influence of the people on their leaders through democratic processes such as voting, criticism, and 

legitimate protest, and the more sensitive and responsive leaders with be (must be if they want to stay in office) to the 

desires of the people. Thus, it is anticipated that there is a positive relationship between the satisfaction of basic 

security needs and the extent of democracy in a country. 

Three variables are considered as control variables. They are productivity growth, the size of government, and 

the extent of globalization. 

Productivity growth is expected to be a positive force for satisfying security needs. Improvement in a countries 

ability to produce places a country in a better position to satisfy needs of its citizens. An Increase in output due to 

productivity growth has multiple uses, one of which is greater basic need fulfillment. 

The two other variables, the size of the government and the extent of globalization are added as control variables 

because their signs are of special interest and have major policy implications. Most everyone would like to know 

whether or not bigger government leads to greater fulfillment of basic human needs and whether or not globalization 

is or is not harmful to human need security. 

 



Economy, 2014, 1(2): 32-36 

 

 

 

 

34 

 

 3. Sources for Variables 
The measure of food security is the food security index from the 2010 Human Security Index data set (Human 

Security Index, 2010). Similarly, health security is captured by using the health security index  from the same source, 

and, a measure of overall social security, by using their social fabric index . For the 232 countries for which the data 

is available, the food security index ranges from 0 to .960, the health security index from .157 to .905, and the social 

fabric index from .172 to .793. The social fabric index is a fairly comprehensive measure of human security in the 

social arena as it based not just on the food security and the health security, but also on indexes for diversity, 

peacefulness, information empowerment, and quality of governance. 

The variable employed to measure the level of economic development is real GDP per capita in 2000 

U.S. dollars for the year 2005 . The data source for the variable is the World Bank (World Bank, 2011). 

Democracy is quantified with the Economist democracy index for 2008 of the Economist's intelligence unit (The 

Economist, 2008). The index has a potential value between zero and ten. 

Productivity growth is the percentage change in real GDP per worker from the year 2000 to 2010 in which real 

GDP per worker is defined as purchasing power parity converted GDP chain per worker at 2005 constant prices. The 

data for real GDP per worker for each of the years comes from the Heston, Summers, and Aten's Penn World Data 

set (Heston et al., 2012). 

The percentage share of government consumption to GDP for 2005 is used to measure government size and the 

percentage of trade to GDP for 2005 to quantify globalization. The numbers for both variables are from the World 

Bank (World Bank, 2011). 

 

4. Regressions for Food Security, Health Security, and Total Social Security  
Table I shows the results of cross country regressions on the level of economic development, democracy, and 

other variables. 

 
Table-1.Cross Country Regressions of Food Security Index on the Level of Development and Other Variables 

 
(1) ( 2) (3) (4) (5) 

CONSTANT .3989 .2107 .1550 .0558 -.0005 

( 22 .93)   (4.94)   (-.01) 

*  * * 

DEVELOPMENT .0000104 .0000089 .0000102 .0000100 .0000090 

(8.03) (5.26) (6.16) (6.18) (5.36) 

* * * * * 

DEMOCRACY  .0335 .0339 .0287 .0303 

(4 .16) (4 .40) (3.72) (3.94) 

* * * * 

PRODUCTIVITY   .0015 .0021 .0020 

GROWTH (3.80) (5.11) (4.87) 
* * * 

GOVTIOGDP    .0074 .0074 
( 2.81) (2 .84) 

* * 

TRADETOGDP     .0006 
(2 .36) 
* * 

RSQ .264 .381 .437 .482 .502 

N 182 159 158 152 151 

 
The table is set up with the first column listing the potential explanatory variables. The five remaining columns 

show the outcomes of an individual regression runs. These are numbered in the first row. 

When a variable enters an equation, the top value in the row for the variable and the equation's column is the 

estimated coefficient value for the variable in that equation. The individual t-statistic is underneath the estimated 

coefficient. It is in parenthesis. Asterisks under the t-statistics are used to provide quick identification of the level of 

significance of variables in the equations. Fewer asterisks indicate greater level of significance. A single asterisk 

indicates significance at the one percent level of significance or better, two asterisks, significance at the five percent 

level of significance or more, and three asterisks, significance at the ten percent level of significance or greater . The 

r-squared values for the equations can be found in the second to last row of the table. Finally, the last row shows the 

number of countries entering the regressions. 

 Table I contains five equations. Starting with the first equation which only contains a single explanatory 

variable, the level of economic development, they each sequentially add, in a cumulative fashion, a single additional 

explanatory variable, democracy in equation two, productivity growth in equation three, government spending to 

GDP in equation four, and trade to GDP in equation five. 

Therefore, the fifth equation contains all five of the explanatory variables. 

The results are very consistent with the hypothesis that greater levels of economic development are favorable for 

food security, and the hypothesis that greater democracy is a boon to food security. The level of economic 

development is positive and significant at the one percent level of significance or better in all five equations, and 

democracy is positive and significant at the one percent level or greater in the four equations that it enters. Together, 

economic development and democracy when used in conjunction with no other explanatory variables explain over 

thirty eight percent of the cross country variation in the food security index (equation (2)). 

The statistical evidence also indicates that productivity growth, government size, and globalization are positive 

for food security. Productivity growth is positive and significant at the at the one percent level of significance in the 



Economy, 2014, 1(2): 32-36 

 

 

 

 

35 

 

three equations that it enters (equations (3), (4) & (5)). Government expenditure to GDP, the measure of government 

size, is positive and significant at the one percent level of significance or greater in the two equations that it appears 

(equations (4) & (5)). Lastly, trade to GDP, the measure of globalization, is positive and significant at the five 

percent level of significance or better in the fifth equation, the only equation that it enters. 

Table II shows the same set of regressions as table I using the health security index as the dependent variable 

instead of the of the food security index. The table is set-up in analogous fashion to table I. The results for health 

security are similar to those for food security. Once again, just as for food security, development and democracy are 

favorable for health security. Once again, productivity growth, government size, and globalization are also positive 

for health security. 

 
Table-2.Cross Country Regressions of Health Security Index on the Level of Development and Other 

Variables 

 (1) ( 2) (3) (4) (5) 

CONSTANT .6287 .4661 .4522 .4047 .3604 

(52.28) (16.13) (14 .75) (10.30) (8.56) 

* * * * * 

DEVELOPMENT .0000084 .0000060 .0000063 .0000059 .0000051 

(9.37) (5 .12) (5.36) (5.13) (4.29) 

* * * * * 

DEMOCRACY  .0314 .0313 .0289 .0303 
(5.78) (5.77) (5.28) (5.57) 

* * * * 

PRODUCTIVITY   .0004 .0007 .0006 

GROWTH (1.37) (2.29) ( 2.01) 
* * ** 

GOVTIOGDP    .0039 .0038 

( 2.06) ( 2.07) 

* * ** 

TRADETOGDP     .0005 
( 2.64) 

* 

RSQ .328 .452 .460 .478 .502 

N 182 159 158 152 151 

 
Next, the same set of regressions is run using the social fabric index, the overall measure of social 

security, as the dependent variable in the regressions. The results are presented in table Ill. Just as in 

the case when the food security index is employed as the dependent variable, and the case when the 

heath security index is employed as the dependent variable, when the social fabric index is used as the 

dependent variable, the level of development, democracy, and the other variables are positive and 

statistically significant forces for overall social security. 

 
Table-3.Cross Country Regressions of Social Fabric Index on the Level of Development and Other 

Variables 

 (1) ( 2) (3) (4) (5) 

CONSTANT .5439 .3818 .3616 .3151 .2740 

(60.90) (20.70) (18.98) (13.11) (11.00) 

* * * * * 

DEVELOPMENT .0000086 .0000065 .0000070 .0000067 .0000060 

(12.92) (8 .89 ) (9.65) (9.57) (8.48) 

* * * * * 

DEMOCRACY  .0303 .0304 .0278 .0291 

(8.73) (9.02) (8.29) (9.00) 
* * * * 

PRODUCTIVITY   .0006 .0007 .0007 

GROWTH (3.15) 

    * 

(4.23) ( 3.91) 

*  * 
GOVTIOGDP    .0039 .0039 

(3.41) ( 3.52) 

*  ** 
TRADETOGDP     .0004 

( 4.01) 
* 

RSQ .481 .682 .704 .728 .755 

N 182 159 158 152 151 

 
Strictly speaking, the index for food security, health security, and overall security, are limited dependent 

variables, so that the assumption of normality in the error term is violated and there is a problem with the test 

statistics using ordinary least squares (the errors also tend to be subject to heteroskedasticity). To address these 

concerns, interpreting each of the three securities indexes as probabilities, regressions of the log of the odds ratio, 

instead of the indexes themselves, were re-run on the independent variables. The results for the regressions (not 

shown) of the log of the odds ratio on each of the security indexes in terms of the signs and statistical importance of 

the various independent variables is similar to the results of the regressions in tables I, II, and III.  



Economy, 2014, 1(2): 32-36 

 

 

 

 

36 

 

5. Conclusion 
Based on the findings of the paper, it appears that a primary way to improve the basic security needs of people in 

a country is to promote economic growth and development and to take measures to insure that government is 

responsive to the needs of its people. It also appears, with regard to satisfying people's fundamental needs, that 

bigger government is generally better, and that there is little reason  to fear globalization , as it seems to be favorable 

for basic security needs. 

 Humans are creatures of hope. As human beings we have the capacity to endure almost any situation as long as 

there is hope that it will be alleviated. There appears to be hope for higher basic security achievement from greater 

economic development.  The paper shows that higher levels of development are associated with greater satisfaction 

of fundamental security needs. And, any cursory look at the evidence certainly indicates that it is possible for 

countries to move from being poorer to being richer. Countries that were at low levels of economic development in 

the recent past such as the Asian tigers, China, and India, have already either achieved a high level of development or 

are well along the path of making a transition to higher levels of economic development. 

There is also hope with regard to government. Human beings ultimately decide the form of government. It may 

be very difficult, it may even take a revolution, but human beings can change a government to make it more 

responsive to the basic security needs of the people. 

 

References 
Adyemi, S.I., G.T. ljaiya, M.A. ljaiya and B.L. ljaiya, 2009. Determinants of the right of access to food in Sub-Saharan Africa . African Journal 

of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 9(5): 1146-1160. Available from: http://www.bioline.org.br/abstract?id=nd09052. 
[Accessed July 12, 2013]. 

Akramov, K.T., Y. Bingxin and F. Shenggen, 2010. Mountains, global food prices, and food security in the developing world. International 

Food Policy Research Institute, Discussion Paper No. 00989. Available from: 
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00989.pdf. [Accessed July 23, 2013]. 

De Muro, P. and B. Francesco, 2007. Education for rural people and food security : A cross country analysis. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations. Available from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1434e/a1434e.pdf [Accessed July 10, 2013]. 

Headey, D.D., 2012. Developmental drivers of nutritional change: A cross-country analysis. World Development, 42: 76-88. 
Heston, A., S. Robert and A. Bettina, 2012. Penn world table version 7.1, center for international comparisons of production. Income and 

Prices at the University of Pennsylvania. Available from: https://pwt.sas.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt71/pwt71_form.php. [Accessed May 

20, 2013]. 

Human Security Index, 2010. Human security index version 2.0. Available from: http://www.humansecurityindex.org/?page_id=28. [Accessed 
June 10, 2013]. 

Jeanty, P.W. and H. Fred, 2006. Analyzing the effects of conflicts on food securtiy in developing countries. An Instrumental Variable Panel 

Data Approach. Available from: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/21483/1/sp06je04.pdf. [Accessed July 23, 2013]. 

Minkler, L. and S. Shawna, 2011. On the indivisibility and interdependence of basic rights in developing countries. Human Rights Quarterly, 
33(2): 351-396. 

Misselhorn, A.A., 2004. What drives food insecurity in Southern Africa? A meta-analysis of household economy studies. Global 

Environmental Change, 15: 33-43. Available from: 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchg
ate.net%2Fpublication%2F222814543_What_drives_food_insecurity_in_southern_Africa_a_meta-

analysis_of_household_economy_studies%2Ffile%2F9c96052a75c2b0406c.pdf&ei=K_O_U7WIHtCsyASAyoDQBg&usg=AFQjC

NFWMioqgupLvgJvW1qFmxgCDkEbA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw. [Accessed July 11, 2013]. 

Sekhampu, T., 2013. Determination of the factors affecting the food security status of households in Bophelong, South Africa. International 
Business & Economics Research Journal, 12(5): 543-550. 

The Economist, 2008. The economist intelligence unit's democracy index. Available from: 

https://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf. [Accessed February 17, 2011]. 

World Bank, 2011. World development indicators. Available from: 
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableSelection/selectvariables.aspx?source=world-development-indicators. [Accessed 

June 20, 2011]. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the authors, Economy shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, 

damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

http://www.bioline.org.br/abstract?id=nd09052
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00989.pdf
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1434e/a1434e.pdf
http://www.humansecurityindex.org/?page_id=28
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/21483/1/sp06je04.pdf
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F222814543_What_drives_food_insecurity_in_southern_Africa_a_meta-analysis_of_household_economy_studies%2Ffile%2F9c96052a75c2b0406c.pdf&ei=K_O_U7WIHtCsyASAyoDQBg&usg=AFQjCNFWMioqgupLvgJvW1qFmxgCDkEbA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F222814543_What_drives_food_insecurity_in_southern_Africa_a_meta-analysis_of_household_economy_studies%2Ffile%2F9c96052a75c2b0406c.pdf&ei=K_O_U7WIHtCsyASAyoDQBg&usg=AFQjCNFWMioqgupLvgJvW1qFmxgCDkEbA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F222814543_What_drives_food_insecurity_in_southern_Africa_a_meta-analysis_of_household_economy_studies%2Ffile%2F9c96052a75c2b0406c.pdf&ei=K_O_U7WIHtCsyASAyoDQBg&usg=AFQjCNFWMioqgupLvgJvW1qFmxgCDkEbA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F222814543_What_drives_food_insecurity_in_southern_Africa_a_meta-analysis_of_household_economy_studies%2Ffile%2F9c96052a75c2b0406c.pdf&ei=K_O_U7WIHtCsyASAyoDQBg&usg=AFQjCNFWMioqgupLvgJvW1qFmxgCDkEbA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableSelection/selectvariables.aspx?source=world-development-indicators

