Introduction

Reducing the number of people suffering from severe food insecurity has improved significantly over the past decades. Many countries still have severe food insecurity, whether they are developing or developed countries^1–4. As the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found, 800 million people are hungry and an extra population burden; globally, it is challenging to eradicate hunger⁵. Food insecurity has an extreme effect on health, individual productivity, overall economic growth of the region, social peace, and general for learning^6–8. A current study drafted by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Program (WFP) and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), more than 820 million people suffer from chronic malnutrition in the world, which was 804 million malnourished people in 2016^9,10. Political instability, sectarian violence, and conflicts exacerbated the problem of hunger and eventually brought food security to a critical juncture⁹. Therefore, the FAO every year on 16 October, celebrates World Food Day to raise global awareness about food security and hunger and that emphasizes the need to keep food security problems at the top of the international research agenda and political plan, and to generate a conducive environment for increasing food security through proper investing and well policies¹¹.

Food security term originates from the 1970s global food crisis¹². It is a flexible conception that has been changed from time to time, representing the reconstructions of official thought on food security¹². Based on the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and Food Agricultural Organizations’ (FAO) existing food security definition is. “Food security happens when all people have physical, social, and economic access to adequate, secure and nutritious food at all the times that satisfy their nutritional needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” According to this definition, four pillars of food security are adapted: food availability, food accessibility, food utilization, and food stability^13,14. In this study, food security is evaluated in terms of food availability. One of several factors suggested by FAO is utilized¹⁴. The dietary energy supply kilocalories per day per capita is used to measure food availability. Therefore, in this study, food security is measured by dietary energy supply (DES) (kcal/day/capita). The DES is an essential pillar of food security¹⁴.

Previous studies have identified many significant reasons for food insecurity, such as rapid population growth^15–18, loss of arable land^19–22, and income (GDP)^17,23. With the level of food production not being able to sustain the growing number of people, which is reducing the arable land due to industry, and because of low incomes, it has caused persisting food insecurity in meeting human and nutritional requirements [1]^,18,24.

Despite numerous studies highlighting the commitment to food security, one factor remains to be given more attention, Mainly due to the high quality of political risk data. This study focuses on several aspects of political risk and seeks to identify the factors of the political risks that are most important to food security[1]. Logically, it should be noted that political risk has a significant negative effect on food security in countries; uncertainty in food security comes due to several factors of high political risks and worsening political institutions[2], such as incompetence in government bureaucracy and corruption, unemployment and poverty (high-socioeconomic conditions), religious and ethnicity tension, internal and external conflicts, and when military involves in politics. It is clear that these factors also lead to political instability, which plays a dirty role in increasing the country’s food insecurity level and poverty^25,26. In addition, other factors of political risk and institutions play a vital role in increasing the level of Dietary Energy Supply (DES), such as democratic accountability and the rule of (law and order), to enhance both measures of nutrition security and food. Good governance is strengthened by strong democratic institutions that elevate transparency and accountability, and that’s why food security levels and economic growth increase. For instance, the prohibition of corruption, strong democratic accountability, law, and order, government stability, play an important role in facilitating child malnutrition and reducing their stunting²⁷.

The level of food security may decrease due to high political risk and weak institutions. As can be seen in the historical trend of political risk and Dietary energy supply, it is presented in Figure 1[1]. That high political risk and weak institutions could threaten countries’ food security levels and eventually increase food insecurity levels, and the level of hunger can become more worsening. However, a limited study is formally available to address this issue, and this study may be among the first to measure the effect of political risk and institutions on food security.

Figure 1: Political risk and dietary energy supply of 124 developed and developing countries between 1984 and 2018. The data source of DES and political risks are the Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT) and the Political Risk Service (PRS) group28,29Click here to View Figure

The purpose of this article is to inspect an extensive range of political risk components and to point out the significance of these political risk components for food security. We explore the effects of government stability, conditions of the socioeconomic, investment profile, the military in politics, religious tension, ethnic tensions, external conflicts and internal conflicts, corruption, law and order, the Quality of Bureaucracy, and democratic accountability; On the level of food security in 124 developed and less developed countries (Appendix A). Some components of these political risks have also been related to political institutions quality. Above all, the quality of bureaucracy is closely related to the strength of institutional of a particular country. Similarly, ensuring law and order and reducing the level of corruption are important determinants (and implications) of better institutions. These effects comprise the related sub-components of “Good Governance” overall assessment³⁰. In a similar context, Greif and Kingston argued that an institution’s quality is often described as formal sets (For example, rules, laws, order, and constitutions), and informal constraints (For example, norms of behaviours, conventions, and self-imposed codes), that jointly motivating regularity in person and social behavior^31,4. In this study, we utilize the dietary energy supply indicator of food security, a dynamic panel regression model was adopted, which is conducive to assessing the impact of long-term policy reforms for food security ^4,32,33. A dynamic panel data model with the generalized method of moments (GMM), the approach was employed to account for potential endogeneity, autocorrelation, omitted variable bias and unobserved heterogeneity of the independent variables^34–36.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: review past studies is in the next section, the variables and data set used in the regression model are presented in section 3, section 4 provides Methodology, including estimation strategies and model specification, the empirical results and its explanation stated in section 5, and finally, section 6 conclude the article.

Literature Review

There are several factors that have been found as critical to food security based on given theories. According to Malthusian theory, food shortages are caused by overpopulation³⁷. that is why food insecurity occurs for a long period of time. In simple terms, the population grows faster than humanoid substances, such as food and agriculture products. By empirical analysis of Brown, Master, and Tian, more food demand increases after an increasing abundance of people and contributes to inadequate food to feed the whole population^15,38,39. For example, water and land use rise significantly in many Populations; as a result, the capacity of farming production is affected³⁸. Likewise, Tian claimed that rapid population growth has significantly affected food availability and has lead to food insecurity, mostly in central South and northern America, Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa³⁹. As time went on, the Malthusian theory began a revitalization in the form of Neo Malthusian. Considering the original Malthus, the Neo Malthusian only adds to the classic Malthus theory that in addition to population size, the arable land is too considered a vital source of food security. Liu and Schneider have been identified that the arable land is more important for food security and food production ^21,40. A real examplar of this would be the industrialization in China, which has occupied a large amount of land to the detriment of agricultural activities⁴⁰. Therefore the arable land is the most important of farming activities; without the arable land, it is impossible to secure food production²¹. In short, Malthus classical theories and Neo Malthusian show that population growth and arable land play a key role in meeting the requirement for food.

The Food Entitlement Declaration (FED) theory suggests that food shortages are caused by a lack of privileges, indicating that certain groups of people do not have access to adequate food ⁴¹. FED’s theory raises concerns about food access, or it can be called a demanding aspect of food security. In these aspects, the third indicator that needs to be verified for food security is income. Pingali, in this aspect, emphasizes that economic access to food has been proven by growing their ability to buy home-made protein and nutritious food from income⁴². There will be more food in the house when the house has more income, and vice versa. Therefore, under the strategy to reduce appetite and malnutrition by meeting dietary requirements and food preferences for an active and healthy life, higher income levels (i.e., provide more jobs or a better political system) is compulsory.

The fourth factor that needs to be verified for food security is trade openness. Hanie and Pangaribowo in this context argued, that increasing trade openness in a country could result in a rise in the total amount of food available to the national population and a variety of foods available to help increase food security^43,44. Globally, international trade can link food production and consumption and thus play a key role in enhancing food security; because it allows global production to take place in regions that are suitable for it and is able to supply food from countries that have abundant food supplies ⁴⁵. Dithmer empirically examined that the trade openness influence on food security is positive and statistically significant, and calorie consumption trade openness also increases food quality and food diversity-related aspects of food security³². Biniaz also empirically measured the effect of trade openness on agriculture has food security levels increasing positively and significantly⁴⁶. Consequently, for a 1 percent increment in the degree of agricultural trade openness, the long-term growth in the food security index would increase by 0.21 percent⁴⁶.

It should be noted, so far, no research has examined the combined effect of all 12 indications of political risk (and institutions) on food security[1]. However, some studies have checked the relationship of some of these indicators with food security. Helal globally checked that food insecurity had increased significantly in countries facing corruption⁴⁷. Corruption hinders social and economic development, negatively affects international and regional development agencies’ efforts to combat hunger and famine in a systematic way, and disrupts market operations⁴⁸. Helal and Uchendu clearly stated that corruption thrives in societies when there are failures in governance or weak government institutions^47,48. Due to weak political institutions and bad governance, it leads to high-level corruption and rapidly decreases food security. In this regard, Zhou argued that the political institution’s quality is considered an essential component in promoting a conducive environment that plays a crucial role in food security ⁴⁹. He further claims that apart from Political institutions, any country’s food security could not be better and argued that food security is a high level in a country where these institutions work correctly. And where the food insecurity is high level, these institutions don’t work correctly. In this context, Smith claims that the government’s four aspects, the prohibition of corruption, strong democratic accountability, political stability, law, and order, play a vital role in facilitating child malnutrition and reducing their stunting²⁷. Government efficiency, political stability, democratic accountability, and the rule of law and order enhance both measures of nutrition security and food^4,50.

Good governance is strengthened by strong democratic institutions that elevate transparency and accountability, and that’s why food security levels and economic growth increase⁵⁰. In the same way, due to bad governance and rampant corruption, conflicts are arises within the country or between countries, which is the biggest threat to food safety^51–53. For instance, more than 60 percent of the world’s hungry and 75 percent of the stunted children under age five live in conflict-affected countries, while these alarming statistics indicate the adverse effects of conflict on food security^54,55. Conflicts are caused not only by poor governance and widespread corruption but also by religious and ethnic tensions ⁵⁶. Fox said that religion and ethnicity tension had been a major cause of internal conflicts (for example, civil disorder or political violence, civil war, terrorism), which play a significant role in destroying a country’s food security^56,57. In this context, Brinkman argued that food insecurity arises, especially when food prices rise, and this increase is due to the increased risk of democratic breakdown, protests, civil war, and sectarian strife⁵⁸. Further, Mauro and Montalvo claim that religious polarization does not directly affect economic development but is important in explaining investment rates, government spending, and the potential for civil war^59,60.  However, ethnicity tension directly affects economic growth and is also important in explaining the potential for civil war⁶⁰.

So, the concluding remarks from the above past studies, that political stability and institutional reforms are essential for the country to attain a stable food supply and thus enhanced long-term food security, while the political conditions and general social and economic affect undernutrition (the fundamental causes in Figure 2)^43,49,61.

Figure 2: A Conceptual Undernutrition Framework Click here to View Figure

Variables and Data

We used a panel sample of 124 countries (developed and developing) throughout 1984-2018[1]. Our main goal is to examine the political risk and institution’s influence on food security. We have taken data of all the variables from three main sources, the dependent variable taken from Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT)²⁹. Information on political risk and institutions have taken from the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) provided by the Political Risk Services (PRS) Group²⁸, and the World Bank (WB) provides the information about control variables⁶². We have measured the level of food security through the Dietary Energy Supply (DES) in terms of kilocalories per capita per day (kcal/capita/day). Information on the dietary energy supply, provided by (FAOSTAT)²⁹, which is the largest global dataset available for this kind of data.

Measuring food security can be difficult, given the many components that affect food supply and demand, and which ultimately helps determine if an individual has adequate access to food that will meet their nutritional needs. It’s complicated to estimate the quantity of food an individual or each household consumes at the macro level almost impossible. It is necessary that appropriate alternative action or proxy is mandatory. Therefore, this research work will depend on an aggregate measure that captures the available Dietary Energy Supply (DES) in terms of (kcal/capita/day). The (DES) is an important component of food security in the literature used^43,63–67. This measure is calculated by the country’s total food supply, which is available for domestic consumption and is distributed by the size of the population to reach per capita.

The data used for political risk and institutions in this study are taken from the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) provided by the Political Risk Services (PRS) group²⁸. The ICRG delivers information regarding the political institution and political risk. The political risk and institutions indicator comprises a total of 12 subcomponents. The detail information is available in Appendix B[1]. Each component is allotted a numerical value within a specified range from 0 to 100, is then divided into categories[2]^,68, with low values representing the weak political institutions and high political risk country while high value representing the better political institution and less political risk country. In general, these indicators of political risk and institutions are extensively recognized and used as political risk and high-quality institutional measures[3].

The first one in all the control variables data that world bank provided is the Population (POP) which measured in terms of annual population growth rate⁶². The second one is Arable Land (AL) as a percentage of total land size (the size of the land is a proxy that can be plowed and used to grow crops). The third one is income denoted by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). And the last one is Trade Openness (TO) an overall country’s exports and imports are measured as a percentage of the country’s GDP.

The explanation and source of all variables are the symbols used for the empirical purpose.

Table 1: Source of the Data and explanations of variables

Source: FAOSTAT stands for food and agricultural organization corporate statistical database, PRS Group stands for the political risk service group and World Bank ^28,29,62.

Table 2 provides information about the summary of statistics which include total observations, mean, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation values of each series earlier transformation into logarithm form.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics, 1984-2018

We have already stated that our purpose was to inspect the effect of political risk, institutions on food security, assessed by dietary energy supply (DES), in terms of (kcal/day/capita) through a dynamic panel (GMM) generalized method of moment approach. According to the prior studies of Subramaniam and Masron, we used the following econometric structure^4,69.

Methodology

Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian, emphasize in their theory that the main reason for food insecurity in the presence of more people than the quantity of food supply³⁷. Malthus claims in its theory that the leading cause of food insecurity is the rapid population growth³⁷. Everything in the world progresses over time. Similarly, progress has been made in the classical Malthusian theory, which is called by the name of Neo-Malthusian theory. The Neo-Malthusian approach is that food insecurity occurs due to limited and finite land⁷⁰. It is a common argument that as the population grows, the demand for food increases and the use of arable land also increases. Hence the basic food security equation can be written as follow.

Where FS denotes the food security assessment by dietary energy supply, POP stands for population growth, and AL represents the Arable land. The food consumption or demand determined by many variables such as trade openness (TO), and income (GDP)^32,39,42,67. Hence the food security function can be rewritten as follow.

A country’s food insecurity cannot be eradicated unless its better institution quality and less political risk. The political risk and institution are the most important in affecting countries’ food security^4,43,49. Zhou and Pangaribowo in this regard claim that apart from better institutions and less political risk, the food security of any country could not be better^43,49. So, to finalize the econometrics model by incorporating the political risk and institutions variable.

Where  is indicating political risk and institution of the 12 indicators. In the final model, the estimated parameter is  while the error term is . The subscript  indicates the countries and  denotes time-period for each country.  Further, to transform all the variables into a logarithm. Then Equation (3) can be written as follows.

Where  is the log form of food security, the set of the explanatory variables is  including population growth, arable land, income, trade openness, and political risk and institution. The nature of our data is a panel. So, according to Arellano and Blundell, we adopt a dynamic panel (GMM)  generalized method of the moment^34,35. To inspect the effect of political risk and institutions on food security for the cross-section of countries. For the potential endogeneity of explanatory variables, the GMM plays a vital role. Hence, Equation (4) can be seen in the form of a dynamic panel regression model.

Where  denotes the country-specific effect unobservable. To avoid unobservable  we followed the role of Arellano the role is to take the first difference-GMM of Equation (5)³⁴. Then we have a new equation becomes.

According to Arellano, the lag explanatory variables use in level as the instrument³⁴. Because the above Equation (6) produces a correlation among the lagged explained variable and the new error term. And because of this correlation:

we have the problem of endogeneity^4,69. To solve this problem, we should need to follow another estimator called System-Generalized Method of Moments (GMM)³⁵. The System-GMM constructed from the estimation of a structure of two simultaneous Equations, one in first difference (with lagged level as an instrument), and the other in level (with a lagged first difference as an instrument). This two-moment condition as follows:

The System-GMM is a more accurate estimator in a dynamic panel data model than estimator first difference-GMM³⁵. Additionally, in the generalized method of moment approach, the scaler p-value is utilized to comparison high-quality (superiority) among the System-GMM and the first difference GMM³⁵. Furthermore, we consider two kinds of test statistics to justify the validity of the GMM estimator. Hansen and the serial correlation test. The first one Hansen test is utilized to inspect the validity of the generalized method of moment estimator⁷¹.

The second for the serial correlation properties test is [AR(1)] and [AR(2)][1]^,34. For further specification, Arellano and Blundell have told that a good estimate of the lag-dependent regressor should fall in the range of its fixed effect and pooled OLS^34,35. Thus these estimates test a useful solidity on the results.

Empirical Results

The level of the food security, measured through dietary energy supply (DES), in the 124 countries of the world, were lower in Yemen, Ethiopia, Uganda, Guinea-Bissau, Bangladesh, Niger, Pakistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Guinea, Nigeria, Moldova, Iraq, Croatia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Congo, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Madagascar, Togo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Haiti, Mongolia, Burma, and higher in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Iceland, united states, Canada, Ireland, Portugal, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Turkey, Israel, and Egypt (see Figure.3)[1]. Countries with low food security levels among them are 20 countries whose low food security level is due to high political risk and weak institutions are three from eastern

Figure 3: The food security level in 124 countries has a geographical distributionClick here to View Figure

Africa, seven from western Africa, one from south-eastern Asia, two from southern Asia, four from western Asia, one from the Caribbean, one from eastern Europe, and one from southern Europe[1]. Before the average dietary energy supply (DES), The lowest level of DES (1241(kcal/capita/day) in 1984) was in Ethiopia. At the same time, the highest level of dietary energy supply (3539 (kcal/capita/day) in 1984) was in Ireland. Regarding the political risk rating, Yemen had the lowest level with 2129 DES (kcal/day/capita) in 2018, In contrast, the United states of America had the highest level with 3828 DES (kcal/day/capita) in 2018.

In Table 3: We summarized a correlation matrix results of the key variables⁷².  All the 12 components of the political risk and institutions have a positive and strongly significant correlation with food security. Besides that, (GDP, TO, AL) is also significantly and positively correlated with food security, except populace growth (POP) has a negative and highly significant relations with food security (FS), which confirms the current literature that determines food security.

Table 3: Correlation Matrix Click here to View Table

Note:  if the value of (P<0.01) then ***, if the value of (P<0.05) then **, and if (P<0.1) then *. FS. Stands for food security; POP stands for the population growth; AL stands for arable land; GDP indicates the gross domestic product; TO stands for trade openness; GST stands for government stability; SEC stand for socioeconomic; INVP stand for investment profile; INTC stands for internal conflict; EXTC stand for external conflict; CORR stand for corruption; MIN stand for the military in politics; RELT stand for religious tension; LAO stand for law and order; ETNT stands for ethnic tension; DEMA stand for democratic accountability, and BURQ stands for bureaucracy quality.

The descriptive tests of the System-GMM estimators mentioned under Table.4 propose the eligibility of System-GMM estimators. The criteria for serial correlation [AR (1)], which accepted the alternative hypothesis (H1) that is the first-order autocorrelation. While [AR (2)] accepted the null hypothesis (H0) that is the no second-order autocorrelation. About instrument validity, Hansen test statistic presents that the instruments used are valid.

The outcomes of the estimated model, as shown in Table 4, are in line with our expectations that the level of food supply declined with the growing populace. The statistically significant and negative value of population growth (POP), the level of food security has been shown to decrease by 3.6%, with a 1% increase in population. From the consequences, we can confirm according to prior studies, that inadequate food supply is a major factor in population growth, leading to hunger^{4,18,32,38,69}.

Table 4: Regression Models (Static and Dynamic Panel Model), 1984-2018

Note that: if the value of (P<0.01) then ***, if the value of (P<0.05) then **, and if ( P<0.1) then *, The Value Of t-statistics In (), The AR And Hansen Test Value Is Stand for The P-Value. A Two-Step Estimates the Models System-GMM and Difference-GMM Both.

As expected, also, the statistically significant and positive value of trade openness (TO) showed a positive influence on food security. As trade grows, so improves a country’s food security level. Thomas, Dither, and Fusco have argued with reference to this result that increasing food supplies can reduce consumer prices, especially for developed countries, making it easier to buy food products^32,67,75.

Regarding agricultural land, we find that the arable land (AL) variable has a statistically significant and positive impact on food security. Negash, Swinnen, Subramaniam, and Masron have stated with reference to this outcome that the incrementation in the food supply is due to the incrementation in agricultural land^4,69,76. An interesting fact about the enlargement of agricultural land is that as a means of production, this land can provide maximum income to the poor agricultural landowners whether the government will help or not. So, in food production, the arable land is the major factor in providing more food resources. Our experimental results highlight the status of the economic feature at the level of food security. The coefficient among our food security (proxied by Dietary Energy Supply) and the explanatory variable (GDP) statistically significant and positive. Therefore, the citizen of a country with a high income have good access to quality food^67,69,77. Hence, having adequate income levels can help individuals achieve adequate nutrition and energy intake levels.

Moving to discuss our main points, as corruption (CORR) indicate that increasing the level of corruption strongly negatively affects the food security level. This result is in line with the results reported by food and agricultural organization in 2018, who argue that the main reason for corruption is that 196 million people in India suffer from chronic Malnutrition⁹. However, we are able to verify food and agricultural organization results in dynamic regression analysis. The coefficient between our independent variable (Bureaucracy) and the dependent variable (Dietary energy supply) was negative and significant. Therefore, Malnutrition and food insecurity in India due to widespread instability in government bureaucracy and due to weak political institutions^{9,49,78 9,78}. Weak institutions would increase food insecurity in the country, so the food security level is greatly affected by the level of Bureaucracy^49,79.

Our results further confirmed that the statistically significant and negative value of the external-conflict (EXTC) Indicates that food and nutrition insecurity is becoming increasingly concentrated in external conflict-affected countries. As a result, between 2015 and 2018, the figure of malnourished people improved by 23.4 million – a significant increase compared to non-conflict countries¹⁰. Our results further indicate that the internal conflict (INTC) is the leading cause of food insecurity. Hendrix and FAO in this aspect, clearly stated that civil disorder or political violence, civil war, terrorism is a vital factor behind severe food insecurity and high food prices^9,53. One hundred and twenty-four countries sample are included in our study, most of which are developing countries. The majority of malnourished people due to race, nationality, or language division (ethnic tension) are found in developing countries¹⁰.  Similarly, Religious stresses can lead to the dominance of society and/or rule by a one religious group seeking to change the civil law to religious law and exclude all other religions from the social and/or political process, and such a religious group wants to supremacy (governance);  as well as pressure on religious freedom.  And such a religious group that also wants to implement its identification apart from the whole country. Under these circumstances, inexperienced people run the government, which makes wrong policies that lead to internal and external conflicts, which plays a vital role in ruining food security^9,80.

The negative sign and strongly significant coefficient of the military in politics (MINP), showing that due to the military in politics, the economic growth going on to decreases⁸¹. while economic growth plays a vital role in enhancing the food security level and reducing the food shortage especially of a developing country^66,82. Further, a relevant and more beautiful argument is given by David G. Acker, who has said that in a democratic country there has never been a famine in any era, Acker said that in countries with multiple elections and dynamic, free media, there are strong political incentives for famine prevention and economic security freedom and the freedom to live⁸³.

The contrary part of the above eight negative and significant political indicators, in the two-step System-GMM results, the sign of government stability (GST), and law and order (LAO) positively and significantly affect the food supply. It shows that Good governance and better institutions are considered an essential element in promoting a conducive environment that plays a vital role to national nutrition, food security, and economic growth. The result of GST and LAO is in line with the results reported by Ogunniyi, has argued that due to political stability, government effectiveness, and the rule of law had enhanced the level of food security and decreased hunger⁵⁰. The significance level of the GST and LAO estimated coefficient is at 5% and a one % level. Next, the positive and significant coefficient for democratic accountability (DEMA), show that the level of democratic accountability of the government is important over time for food security. For instance, Smith argued that the role of democratic accountability in facilitating child malnutrition and national food availability is highly positive²⁷.  He also claims that the government democratic accountability and four other components of governance such as government stability, bureaucracy quality, restraint of corruption, law and order played essential facilitating roles in, safe water access, child stunting, and food supply.

Conclusion

This study empirically examined the association among food security and political risk and institution’s variables using dynamic panel data for 124 countries from 1984 to 2018 in the global (Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean),  based on System- GMM, Difference-GMM, Fixed-Effect, and Pooled-OLS models. According to the outcomes of the System-GMM, we concluded that all factors of political risk and institutions significantly affect food supply, four of them (i.e., government stability, the rule of law and order, investment profile, and democratic accountability) affect the food supply positively and significantly. Besides that, socioeconomic condition, internal conflicts, external conflicts, corruption, military in politics, and ethnicity tensions, religious tensions, and bureaucracy quality negatively and significantly affect food supply. Food insecurity occurs when there are high-level political risk and weak institutions. So, the conclusions of this article that high-level political risk and weak institutions are perilous for food security, which ensures an unstable food supply.

Acknowledgements

We thank our respected reviewers and especially to Wang Qingshi for their valuable comments and suggestions that really helped us to improve this paper.

Funding

We have not received any funding from any organization.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

1. Long MA, Gonçalves L, Stretesky PB, Defeyter MA. Food insecurity in advanced capitalist nations: A review. Sustain. 2020;12(9):1-19. doi:10.3390/su12093654.
   CrossRef
2. Fusco G, Coluccia B, De Leo F. Effect of Trade Openness on Food Security in the EU: A Dynamic Panel Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12). doi:10.3390/ijerph17124311
   CrossRef
3. Subramaniam Y, Arif T, Hadiyan N, Azman N. The impact of biofuels on food security ☆. 2019;(October). doi:10.1016/j.inteco.2019.10.003.
   CrossRef
4. Masron TA, Subramaniam Y, Subramaniam T. Institutional Quality and Food Security. Singapore Econ Rev. 2020. doi:10.1142/s0217590820500046.
   CrossRef
5. Fao WFP. IFAD (2012) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012: Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. FAO, Rome. 2014.
6. orld Bank W. Repositioning Nutrition as Central to Development: A Strategy for Large-Scale Action. 2006.
7. Upton JB, Cissé JD, Barrett CB. Food security as resilience: Reconciling definition and measurement. Agric Econ. 2016;47(S1):135-147.
   CrossRef
8. Adebayo O, Olagunju K, Kabir SK, Adeyemi O. Social crisis, terrorism and food poverty dynamics: evidence from Northern Nigeria. Int J Econ Financ Issues. 2016;6(4).
9. FAO I, WFP WHO, UNICEF. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. 2018.
10. FAO UNICEF, WFP, WHO I. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2019: safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns. 2019.
11. FAO. World Food Day . http://www.fao.org/world-food-day/home/en/. Published October 16, 2020. Accessed November 11, 2020.
12. fao. Trade Reforms and Food Security: Conceptualizing the Linkages.; 2003.
13. CFS. Commitee on World Food Security Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (GSF).; 2015.
14. FAO I and W. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2015/en/. Published 2015. Accessed November 15, 2020.
15. Brown LR. World population growth, soil erosion, and food security. Science (80- ). 1981:995-1002.
    CrossRef
16. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH, Daily GC. Food security, population and environment. Popul Dev Rev. 1993:1-32.
    CrossRef
17. Hanjra MA, Qureshi ME. Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy. 2010;35(5):365-377.
    CrossRef
18. Godber OF, Wall R. Livestock and food security: vulnerability to population growth and climate change. Glob Chang Biol. 2014;20(10):3092-3102.
    CrossRef
19. Murphy S. Globalization and corporate concentration in the food and agriculture sector. Development. 2008;51(4):527-533.
    CrossRef
20. Funk CC, Brown ME. Declining global per capita agricultural production and warming oceans threaten food security. Food Secur. 2009;1(3):271-289.
    CrossRef
21. Schneider UA, Havlík P, Schmid E, et al. Impacts of population growth, economic development, and technical change on global food production and consumption. Agric Syst. 2011;104(2):204-215.
    CrossRef
22. Smith P. Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob Food Sec. 2013;2(1):18-23.
    CrossRef
23. Tadasse G, Algieri B, Kalkuhl M, Von Braun J. Drivers and triggers of international food price spikes and volatility. In: Food Price Volatility and Its Implications for Food Security and Policy. Springer, Cham; 2016:59-82.
    CrossRef
24. Dithmer J, Abdulai A. Does trade openness contribute to food security? A dynamic panel analysis. Food Policy. 2017;69:218-230.
    CrossRef
25. Justesen MK, Bjørnskov C. EXPLOITING THE POOR: BUREAUCRATIC CORRUPTION AND POVERTY IN AFRICA.; 2012. www.afrobarometer.org. Accessed November 11, 2020.
    CrossRef
26. Deaton BJ, Lipka B. Political instability and food security. J Food Secur. 2015;3(1):29-33.
    CrossRef
27. Smith LC, Haddad L. Reducing child undernutrition: past drivers and priorities for the post-MDG era. World Dev. 2015;68:180-204.
    CrossRef
28. PRS Group. International country risk guide: political risk (Table 3b). https://epub.prsgroup.com/products/icrg/researcher-dataset-icrg-t3b-political-risk. Published 2018. Accessed November 11, 2020.
29. FAO. Food Balance. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data. Published 2017. Accessed November 11, 2020.
30. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Zoido P. Governance matters. World Bank policy Res Work Pap. 1999;(2196).
31. Greif A, Kingston C. Institutions: rules or equilibria? In: Political Economy of Institutions, Democracy and Voting. Springer; 2011:13-43.
    CrossRef
32. Dithmer J, Abdulai A. Does trade openness contribute to food security? A dynamic panel analysis. Food Policy. 2017;69:218-230. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.04.008.
    CrossRef
33. Subramaniam Y, Masron TA, Azman NHN. The impact of biofuels on food security. Int Econ. 2019;160(August):72-83. doi:10.1016/j.inteco.2019.10.003.
    CrossRef
34. Arellano M, Bond S. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud. 1991;58(2):277-297.
    CrossRef
35. Blundell R, Bond S. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom. 1998;87(1):115-143.
    CrossRef
36. Sabir S, Rafique A, Abbas K. Institutions and FDI: evidence from developed and developing countries. Financ Innov. 2019;5(1). doi:10.1186/s40854-019-0123-7.
    CrossRef
37. Malthus TR. An essay on the principle of population as it affects the future improvement of society, with remarks on the speculations of Mr Godwin, M. Condorcet, other Writ London J Johnson. 1798.
38. Masters WA, Djurfeldt AA, De Haan C, et al. Urbanization and farm size in Asia and Africa: Implications for food security and agricultural research. Glob Food Sec. 2013;2(3):156-165.
    CrossRef
39. Tian J, Bryksa BC, Yada RY. Feeding the world into the future–food and nutrition security: the role of food science and technology. Front Life Sci. 2016;9(3):155-166.
    CrossRef
40. Liu YS, Wang JY, Long HL. Analysis of arable land loss and its impact on rural sustainability in Southern Jiangsu Province of China. J Environ Manage. 2010;91(3):646-653.
    CrossRef
41. Devereux S. Theories of Famine (Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York). 1993.
42. Pingali P. Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and policy. Food Policy. 2007;32(3):281-298.
    CrossRef
43. Pangaribowo EH, Gerber N, Torero MA. Food and Nutrition Security Indicators: A Review. SSRN Electron J. 2013;(February). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2237992.
    CrossRef
44. Hanie E. www.econstor.eu. 2013.
45. Runge CF, Senauer B, Pardey PG, Rosegrant MW. Ending Hunger in Our Lifetime: Food Security and Globalization. Intl Food Policy Res Inst; 2003.
46. BINIAZ A, MOHAMMADI H. The effect of agriculture trade openness on food security in Iran (ARDL Approach). 2018.
47. Helal G, Ahmadigheidari D, Kosoy N, Melgar‐Quiñonez H. Exploring the Relationship between Corruption and Food Security Status on a Global Scale. FASEB J. 2016;30:1149.
48. Uchendu FN, Abolarin TO. Corrupt practices negatively influenced food security and live expectancy in developing countries. Pan Afr Med J. 2015;20.
    CrossRef
49. Zhou Z, Wan G. FOOD INSECURITY in Asia.; 2017.
50. Ogunniyi AI, Mavrotas G, Olagunju KO, Fadare O, Adedoyin R. Governance quality, remittances and their implications for food and nutrition security in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 2020;127:104752. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104752.
    CrossRef
51. O’Donnell M. Post-conflict corruption: a rule of law agenda? borrador capítulo Prep para el vol“Civil War Rule Law” Dispon en< http//siteresources worldbank org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/1740479-1149112210081/2604389-1149699443576/2628502-1150401005955/corruption_conflict_and_rule_of_law. 2006.
52. Yiew T-H, Habibullah MS, Law S-H, Azman-Saini WNW. Does bad governance cause armed conflict? Int J Appl Bus Econ Res. 2016;14(6):3741-3755.
53. Hendrix C, Brinkman H-J. Food insecurity and conflict dynamics: Causal linkages and complex feedbacks. Stab Int J Secur Dev. 2013;2(2).
    CrossRef
54. Nations F and AO of the U. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017: Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security. FAO; 2017.
55. Holleman C, Jackson J, Sánchez M V, Vos R. Sowing the Seeds of Peace for Food Security. Disentangling the Nexus between Conflict, Food Security and Peace.; 2017.
56. Fox J. The ethnic‐religious nexus: The impact of religion on ethnic conflict. Civ Wars. 2000;3(3):1-22.
    CrossRef
57. George J, Adelaja A, Weatherspoon D. Armed Conflicts and Food Insecurity: Evidence from Boko Haram’s Attacks. Am J Agric Econ. 2020;102(1):114-131.
    CrossRef
58. Brinkman H-J, Hendrix CS. Food Insecurity and Violent Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Addressing the Challenges. World Food Programme; 2011.
    CrossRef
59. Mauro P. Corruption and growth. Q J Econ. 1995;110(3):681-712.
    CrossRef
60. Montalvo JG, Reynal-Querol M. The Effect of Ethnic and Religious Conflict on Growth. PRPES Working Paper; 2002.
61. Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, et al. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet. 2008;371(9608):243-260.
    CrossRef
62. World Bank. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator?tab=all. Published 2020. Accessed November 12, 2020.
63. Brown ME. Food Security , Food Prices And.; 2014.
64. Gyimah-Brempong K, Adesugba M. Agricultural Aid and Food Security in Africa 1. 2015.
    CrossRef
65. van Weezel S. Food Security and Armed Conflict: A Cross-Country Analysis.; 2017. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2934177.
    CrossRef
66. Manap NMA, Ismail NW. Food Security and Economic Growth. Int J Mod Trends Soc Sci. 2019;2(8):108-118.
    CrossRef
67. Fusco G, Coluccia B, De Leo F. Effect of Trade Openness on Food Security in the EU: A Dynamic Panel Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4311.
    CrossRef
68. Howell LD. International country risk guide methodology. East Syracuse, NY PRS Gr. 2011.
69. Subramaniam Y, Masron TA, Azman NHN. The impact of biofuels on food security. Int Econ. 2019;160(October):72-83. doi:10.1016/j.inteco.2019.10.003.
    CrossRef
70. Stutz FPYB. Warf (2007) The World Economy: Resource. Locat Trade.
71. Hansen LP. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econom J Econom Soc. 1982:1029-1054.
    CrossRef
72. Mason CH, Perreault Jr WD. Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. J Mark Res. 1991;28(3):268-280.
    CrossRef
73. Falk R, Miller NB. A Primer for Soft Modeling. Vol 2. Akron, OH,  US: University of Akron Press; 1992. http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Primer_for_Soft_Modeling.html?id=3CFrQgAACAAJ.
74. Bolarinwa TM. EFFECT OF FOREIGN AID ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA : A SYSTEM GMM APPROACH. 2020;1:19-38.
75. Thomas HC. Trade Reforms and Food Security: Country Case Studies and Synthesis. Food & Agriculture Org.; 2006.
76. Negash M, Swinnen JFM. Biofuels and food security: Micro-evidence from Ethiopia. Energy Policy. 2013;61:963-976.
    CrossRef
77. Mary S. Hungry for free trade? Food trade and extreme hunger in developing countries. Food Secur. 2019;11(2):461-477.
    CrossRef
78. Middela N, Bloomfield Hills MI, Governance G. India: Eliminating Corruption to Ensure Food Security.
79. Irani Z, Sharif AM, Lee H, et al. Managing food security through food waste and loss: Small data to big data. Comput Oper Res. 2018;98:367-383.
    CrossRef
80. FAO I. WFP (2015). The state of food insecurity in the World. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets. Taking stock of uneven progress. Rome, FAO. 2017.
81. Birchler K. The Effect of Military Political Power on Economic Development in de Jure Democracies. Center for Comparative and International Studies (ETH Zurich and University …; 2012.
82. Timmer P. Food security and economic growth: an Asian perspective. Cent Glob Dev Work Pap. 2004;(51).
83. Acker DG, Androulidakis S, Lansdale BM, Lansdale EK, Smith BK, Warner R. Food security and socio-political stability in the Balkans: The role of agricultural education. Assoc Int Agric Ext Educ Emerg Trends Agric Ext Educ Bat Rouge, Louisiana. 2001.
84. Nakuja T, Kerr WA. International trade and food security: can public stockholding be dismissed? Int J Food Agric Econ. 2019;7(2):91-106.
85. Assoumou-Ella G, Eba-Nguema I. Trade Openness and Food Security in Africa: A Comparative Study of CEMAC and WAEMU Countries. In: The External Sector of Africa’s Economy. Springer; 2019:119-135.
    CrossRef
86. Llewellyn, Howell D. International Country Risk Guide Methodology BACKGROUND OF THE ICRG RATING SYSTEM. 2001:17. https://www.prsgroup.com/.
87. Knack S, Keefer P. Institutions and economic performance: cross‐country tests using alternative institutional measures. Econ Polit. 1995;7(3):207-227.
    CrossRef
88. Erb CB, Harvey CR, Viskanta TE. Political Risk, Economic Risk, and Financial Risk. 1996;(December):29-46.
    CrossRef
89. Mudassaar K. Corruption and Economic Growth Nexus : Do Institutions Matter ? Corruption and Economic Growth Nexus : Do Institutions Matter ? Abstract : 2019;(June).
90. Harms P, Ursprung HW. Do civil and political repression really boost foreign direct investments? Econ Inq. 2002;40(4):651-663.
    CrossRef
91. Rodrik D, Subramanian A, Trebbi F. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., Trebbi, F., 2004. Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth 9, 131–165. J Econ growth. 2004;9(2):131-165.
    CrossRef
92. Busse M, Hefeker C. Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment. Eur J Polit Econ. 2007;23(2):397-415. doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2006.02.003.
    CrossRef
93. Hayakawa K, Kimura F, Lee HH. How Does Country Risk Matter for Foreign Direct Investment? Dev Econ. 2013;51(1):60-78. doi:10.1111/deve.12002.
    CrossRef

Appendix A: Developed and Developing Countries Sample

Appendix B: The detail explanation of political risk components

Source: International Country Risk Guide (ICRG)⁶⁸

Appendix C: The Changes in Political Risk Rating and Food Security

NOTE: PRI_AVG, the political risk index is measured by the average[1], While FS_AVG, food security is also measured by the average of dietary energy supply.  The higher value of PRI_AVG indicating better institutions and less political risk countries, while the higher value of FS_AVG indicating high food secure country.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database and the Political Risk Service Group^28,29,68.