Hunger and Conflict: What the Global Hunger Index Reveals for a High-Risk Country Group.

Over the past weeks, we examined whether structural hunger is associated with future conflict intensity in a set of fragile states. Using the Global Hunger Index (GHI) and conflict data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), we find a consistent, positive relationship: countries with higher GHI scores tend to experience higher conflict intensity in the years that follow.

This analysis focuses exclusively on the GHI and a specific group of countries: Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Haiti, Malawi, Central African Republic, Liberia, Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo (Republic), Comoros, Somalia, Angola, and Chad. These countries are also among those most affected by food insecurity according to Our World in Data’s Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) dataset, which documents high shares of populations facing moderate or severe food insecurity.

Data and method.

• Global Hunger Index (GHI) values from 2000, 2008, 2016, and 2024.

• UCDP conflict intensity (annual maximum intensity level per country), aggregated into sums over multi-year windows.

To test predictive content, we used forward windows beginning in the GHI year (e.g., 5-year window from y to y+4) and also explored backward windows for context. We estimated both Pearson (linear) and Spearman (rank) correlations for multiple window lengths: 3, 5, 7, and 10 years. The analysis was restricted to the country set listed above.

Key findings:

• Forward-looking results point to a robust, positive association between GHI and future UCDP conflict intensity. The Spearman rank correlations are consistently significant and stronger than Pearson, indicating a stable monotonic relationship with some nonlinearity and outliers.

  • Forward 3 years: Pearson r ≈ 0.39 (p ≈ 0.063), Spearman ρ ≈ 0.53 (p ≈ 0.007)

  • Forward 5 years: r ≈ 0.27 (p ≈ 0.20), ρ ≈ 0.42 (p ≈ 0.037)

  • Forward 7 years: r ≈ 0.24 (p ≈ 0.26), ρ ≈ 0.41 (p ≈ 0.040)

  • Forward 10 years: r ≈ 0.38 (p ≈ 0.052), ρ ≈ 0.53 (p ≈ 0.004)

• Backward windows are weaker but often positive for shorter spans (e.g., 3 years), which is consistent with persistence and clustering in both hunger and conflict dynamics.

Taken together, these results suggest that structural hunger—as captured by the GHI—is meaningfully associated with higher conflict intensity in subsequent years for this high-risk country group.

Scatterplots: forward 5 years and forward 10 years, with country labels and correlation boxes.

Why the GHI matters here.

The GHI is a composite indicator capturing undernourishment, child wasting, child stunting, and child mortality. It reflects structural deprivation rather than short-term consumption shocks. This helps explain why it correlates with medium-run conflict intensity: it tracks long-run stressors that shape fragility, grievance, and the state’s capacity to deliver basic public goods.

Notably, when we looked at FIES in separate, broader analyses, we found much weaker or even negative relationships depending on the subset and windowing. That divergence underscores that hunger metrics are not interchangeable: GHI captures structural deficits; FIES reflects a rolling, survey-based experience measure. For strategic foresight and multi-year planning, the GHI appears particularly informative in this context.

The “Infomarathon” angle: who suffers most from food insecurity?

The country set we analyze is not arbitrary. These states sit among those with the world’s highest shares of people facing moderate or severe food insecurity, as documented by Our World in Data’s FIES-based series. For a succinct overview and source context, see the OWID research-and-writing note linked on their data explorer: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-moderate-or-severe-food-insecurity?tab=table&tableFilter=countries#research-and-writing

This convergence—high structural hunger (GHI), high food insecurity prevalence (FIES), and elevated conflict risk—highlights the need for integrated policy responses that address both baseline deprivation and conflict prevention.

What the visuals show.

We produced scatterplots with regression lines, labeling all countries and color-coding by GHI year (2000, 2008, 2016, 2024). The forward 5-year and 10-year windows reveal a clear upward slope: higher GHI is associated with greater cumulative conflict intensity. The Spearman statistics printed on the plots confirm that the trend is not driven by a single year or a single outlier.

Files produced for transparency include:

Scatterplots: forward 5 years and forward 10 years, with country labels and correlation boxes.

Panel and summary CSVs: all observations and correlation summaries by window.

Policy implications:

• Prevention pays: Reducing structural hunger and child undernutrition isn’t only a humanitarian imperative; it may also reduce the probability and intensity of conflict in the medium run.

• Multi-year focus: Because relationships are stronger across 5–10 year windows, interventions should be sustained and sequenced—nutrition, health systems, and social protection alongside governance and conflict-mitigation.

• Country-specific strategies: While the monotonic relationship is robust, outliers and nonlinearity suggest that tailored approaches are essential—especially where conflict dynamics are driven by regional spillovers, illicit economies, or political shocks.

Structural hunger is a significant factor contributing to the emergence and escalation of conflicts. The Global Hunger Index can help identify risk areas and take preventive measures.

Sources:

https://ourworldindata.org/

https://ucdp.uu.se/

https://www.globalhungerindex.org/de/