Exploring the Nexus of Income, Happiness, and Food Security: A Global Analysis Across 99 Countries

Muhammad Ichsan Fadillah Poznań University of Life Sciences ul. Wojska Polskiego 28 Poznań 60-624 Poland e-mail: [email protected] Journal of Life and Medical Sciences Niniejsze badanie analizuje złożone relacje między dochodem, szczęściem a bezpieczeństwem żywnościowym w 99 krajach w latach 2012-2022. Wykorzystując dane z Banku Światowego (GNI na mieszkańca skorygowane o parytet siły nabywczej), World Happiness Report oraz Globalnego Indeksu Bezpieczeństwa Żywnościowego The Economist, testujemy, czy korelacje dochód-bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe mają charakter wielomianowy, podczas gdy relacje szczęście-bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe pozostają liniowe. Pytanie badawcze brzmi: „Jak wzajemnie oddziałują na siebie dochód, szczęście i bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe na poziomie globalnym?” Poprzez modele regresji i testy ANOVA stosujemy teorię malejącej użyteczności krańcowej oraz koncepcje dobrostanu subiektywnego. Wyniki potwierdzają, że chociaż obecne interwencje ekonomiczne w krajach o niskich dochodach pozostają istotne, skuteczne globalne bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe wymaga zrównoważonych podejść łączących rozwój gospodarczy z poprawą dobrostanu, szczególnie w krajach o wysokich dochodach. Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne Streszczenie 3 Słowa kluczowe: dochód, szczęście, bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe, analiza globalna, wpływy społeczne. This study examines the complex relationships between income, happiness, and food security across 99 countries during 2012-2022. Using data from the World Bank (GNI per capita PPPadjusted), World Happiness Report, and the Economist’s Global Food Security Index, we test whether income-food security correlations follow polynomial patterns while happiness-food security relationships remain linear. The research question guiding this analysis is: “How do income, happiness, and food security interrelate at the global level?” Through regression models and ANOVA testing, we apply diminishing marginal utility theory and subjective well-being frameworks. Results confirm that while current economic interventions targeting low-income countries remain essential, effective global food security requires balanced approaches incorporating both economic development and well-being enhancement, particularly in high-income nations. Abstract Key words: income, happiness, food security, global analysis, societal impacts. Exploring the Nexus of Income, Happiness, and Food Security: A Global Analysis Across 99 Countries Badanie złożonych relacji między dochodem, szczęściem a bezpieczeństwem żywnościowym: Globalna analiza 99 krajów 4 Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne www.naukowcy.org.pl Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne Introduction At the end of 2023, the World Bank announced that it has mobilized 45 billion dollars for addressing food security problems, which surpassed the initial commitment of 30 billion dollars it has made in 2022 (World Bank, 2023). This effort was undertaken as food insecurity is escalating, threatening vulnerable communities globally (World Bank, 2023). An estimated quarter of billion people face acute food insecurity, a figure that represents more than 33 percent year-over-year increase (World Bank, 2023). If this trend continues, the world will host 950 million food-insecure people in 2030 (World Bank, 2023). The World Bank’s financial commitment to tackle this problem is essential because it represents a form of action that can immediately address the food security emergencies the world is facing (World Bank, 2023). The problems surrounding food insecurity are multi-causal (Andree et al., 2024). Two notable causes of food insecurity are the slow global recovery from COVID-19; and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both events have impacted economic stability by creating elevated inflation, tighter monetary policies, and reduced financial support (Andree et al., 2024). Beyond economic impacts, food security faces direct threats from nonrenewed Black Sea Grain Initiative and restrictive food trade policies across different countries (World Bank, 2023). Additionally, there is a threat caused by El Nino climate pattern (World Bank, 2023). The causes of food insecurity concretely result in the derailment of the 2nd goal of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which is zero hunger by 2030, also known as SDG2 (Andree et al., 2024). The fact that food security is specifically addressed as one of the 17 goals in SDG suggests a need for effort that is worldwide in scale to address the issue (United Nations, 2024). The position of zero hunger as goal number 2 in the SDG list is indicative of not only its importance in terms of priority, but also in terms of its role being the base of other goals (United Nations, 2024). SDGs suggest that the goals of economic activities should focus on not only growth but also sustainability, because through sustainability, economic success will be achieved not only for today but also for the future (Singh Tomar, 2023). With the slogan of “leaving no one behind”, SDGs imply that economic benefits should cover everyone (Sustainability Knowledge Group, 2021). Since SDGs’ mission is to improve the lives of all people, SDGs are closely related to happiness (Sustainability Knowledge Group, 2021). The World Happiness Report (WHR), the first of its kind to report countries based on their happiness rather than traditional economic measurements like GDP, suggests that SDG index and subjective well-being (SWB) have a quadratic relationship, indicating that a higher SDG score correlates more strongly with higher SWB at higher levels of the SDG index (De Neve and Sachs, 2020). The use of happiness as a measurement for countries was pioneered by Bhutan with its Gross National Happiness (GNH) (Boyreau, 2016). In the 1970s, Bhutan’s king mentioned that GNH is more important than GDP (Boyreau, 2016). While some view GNH as a tourism marketing strategy, the use of GNH has brought real benefits to poverty alleviation and shared prosperity in the country (Boyreau, 2016). Furthermore, it initiated the philosophical question among economists of whether countries should pace the economic progress to allow all non-monetary dimensions of development, like culture and social relations, to catch up (Boyreau, 2016). The GNH philosophy consists of four pillars, one of which is sustainable development (Boyreau, 2016). Since food security is an important part of sustainable development as seen from SDG2, the linkage between happiness and sustainable development implies the adoption of both happiness and food security into the economic realm. This is the central theme of this paper. Focusing on the happiness-economy-food security nexus, this paper seeks to investigate the correlation between income, food security index, and happiness index. This analysis is particularly relevant in terms of the nature of the current approach to food security globally. The World Bank’s project announced in May 2022 focuses on the financial aspect to approach food security issues (World Bank, 2022a). Furthermore, efforts to achieve global food security revolve around problems faced by developing countries, like extreme poverty (United Nations General Assembly, 2023). By analyzing data from 99 countries with various income levels, this paper aims to provide empirical evidence as to whether the focus on economic interventions in low-income countries effectively addresses global food security challenges. Journal of Life and Medical Sciences Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne 5 www.naukowcy.org.pl Current state of knowledge Past research has focused on income, happiness, and food security. One study surveyed data from low-income households in Atlanta, Georgia, US in 2004 (Bezuneh and Yiheyis, 2020). Several findings of the study include: (1)low-income households, even those classified as food secure, generally struggle to cover their monthly expenses and often resort to various coping strategies like delaying non-food purchases and borrowing from friends and family to make ends meet, (2)there is a significant mismatch between household self-assessment of their food conditions and the standard food-security classification, indicating that many households feel more food secure than they actually are according to official measures, and (3)despite receiving government assistance, a substantial percentage of low-income households remain food insecure, suggesting the assistance may be inadequate or ineffective (Bezuneh and Yiheyis, 2020). The study employed descriptive and correlation analyses to examine the relationships between income status, food security self-assessment, and happiness (Bezuneh and Yiheyis, 2020). Four theoretical frameworks guided the analysis (Bezuneh and Yiheyis, 2020). These include Amartya Sen’s capability approach, Richard Layard’s happiness economics, Maxwell and Smith’s coping strategies framework, and USDA’s food security measurement (Bezuneh and Yiheyis, 2020). Another study examined the relationship between food security and happiness using the data from 105 countries from 2012 to 2019 (Salahodjaev and Mirziyoyeva, 2021). The study used the happiness data from WHR and food insecurity from the Global Food Security Index (GFSI) from the Economist (Salahodjaev and Mirziyoyeva, 2021). The researchers conducted a bivariate regression analysis, specifically Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method, to examine the correlation between the two, while adjusting for GDP growth, government size, democracy status, gender equality, corruption level, as well as social kindness (Salahodjaev and Mirziyoyeva, 2021). The study’s findings include a significant negative correlation between life satisfaction and food insecurity (Salahodjaev and Mirziyoyeva, 2021). Specifically, one unit of increase in food insecurity decreases life satisfaction by 0.8 units (Salahodjaev and Mirziyoyeva, 2021). Furthermore, the relationship remained consistent and strong after all adjustment factors were introduced (Salahodjaev and Mirziyoyeva, 2021). While the study did not explicitly reference theoretical frameworks, several guiding concepts informed the analysis (Salahodjaev and Mirziyoyeva, 2021). These concepts include human capital, instrumental variable approach, and control variables (Salahodjaev and Mirziyoyeva, 2021). Another paper that investigates the correlation between happiness and food security specifically studied Chinese farmers (Zhu and Leng, 2023). The study utilized the data published by the China Social Survey (CSS) in 2013 as the primary reference, while 2017 and 2021 were used as comparison points (Zhu and Leng, 2023). The researchers employed at least five statistical methods including Propensity Score Matching method, Recursive Bivariate Ordered Probit model, Conditional Mixed Process method, Ordinary Least Squares and Ordered Probit regression models, as well as Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) and IPW-Regression Adjustment (Zhu and Leng, 2023). The theoretical foundation spans from classical to contemporary economic theories of happiness (Zhu and Leng, 2023). The framework incorporates Aristotelian concepts of happiness, Adam Smith’s wealth-satisfaction relationship, Welfare Economics’ utility maximization, and Easterlin’s paradox regarding the complex income-happiness relationship (Zhu and Leng, 2023). The study found that Chinese farmers’ perception of food safety has a significant positive impact on their happiness (Zhu and Leng, 2023). Furthermore, the positive effect of food safety perception on happiness is more pronounced among middle-aged, elderly, and highly educated farmers, indicating that these groups are more sensitive to food safety issues (Zhu and Leng, 2023). The study serves as a policy recommendation for policymakers to focus on improving food safety in rural areas, promote food safety awareness, and educate farmers in food safety supervision to enhance overall happiness among farmers (Zhu and Leng, 2023). Another study that examines the relationship between food security and happiness utilizing primary data by conducting own surveys of older people (60 years and up) in Thailand (Phulkerd et al., 2023). The study found that happiness among older people is influenced by various factors including food-related behaviors, socio-demographic characteristics, and economic conditions (Phulkerd et al., 2023). The researchers integrated their findings with the World Health Organization (WHO) framework on health, participation, and 6 Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne www.naukowcy.org.pl Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne Theoretical framework This paper employs the utility theory to examine the relationship between income and food security, particularly the concept of diminishing marginal utility of income. Meanwhile, to understand the correlation between happiness and food security, the theory applied is the subjective well-being theory, especially aspects related to consumption and life satisfaction. Utility theory puts the focus on utility when looking at income (Layard et al., 2008). Utility is a concept in economics that measures satisfaction derived from goods and services (Layard et al., 2008). Therefore, while utility is usually associated to happiness, it can also be applied to various aspects of life, such as health, education, and food security (Layard et al., 2008). The theory states that extra satisfaction gained from income decreases as income increases (Layard et al., 2008). A study that analyzed the data across multiple surveys from 50 countries between 1972 and 2005, it finds that the elasticity of marginal utility from income ranges from 1.19 to 1.34, with a combined estimate of 1.26 (Layard et al., 2008). Even after accounting for bias in satisfaction reporting, there is only a slight decrease to this number, resulting in 1.24 (Layard et al., 2008). This means that not only does additional satisfaction from additional income decreases, but it does so at a similar rate across different populations (Layard et al., 2008). This is called the diminishing marginal utility of income (Layard et al., 2008). The diminishing marginal utility of income means that the marginal increase in utility diminishes as marginal income increases (Layard et al., 2008). This results in a curve that represents the relationship between income and utility having a downward slope (Layard et al., 2008). For income-consumption relationships, the curve is logarithmic (Layard et al., 2008). This is because as income increases, the additional satisfaction from each extra unit of income decreases at a decreasing rate, forming a curve that flattens out as income grows (Layard et al., 2008). Both the downward slope in income-utility curves and the logarithmic curve in income-consumption curves suggests that there is a consistent decline in utility as income increases (Layard et al., 2008). If applied to food security, the diminishing marginal utility of income can consider food security as a form of consumption. In this case, there should be a logarithmic curve in the relationship between income and food security. Conversely, the correlation between happiness and food security is expected to be linear, which is explained through the subjective well-being theory. The linear correlation between happiness and consumption is derived from the subjective well-being theory where consumption can be translated into happiness: through three key mechanisms: (1) preference, (2) autonomy, and (3) perspective level (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). Regarding preference, increase in consumption correlates with increase in happiness only if it is in line with the personal preference of an individual (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). For autonomy, increase in consumption corresponds to increase in happiness only if it fosters the sense of control that one has over themselves (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). Concerning perspective level, consumption and happiness can be viewed through two different perspectives: personal and societal (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). The increase in consumption correlates with increase in happiness primarily at the personal level (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). Similar to the positive relationship, decreases in consumption correspond to decrease in happiness (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). For preference, if a consumption is against one’s personal preference, their happiness will decrease (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). Regarding autonomy, happiness decreases when one’s consumption of goods is outside of their control (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). Finally, concerning perspective level, happiness decreases when consumption is dictated by societal conditions (Iyer and Muncy, 2016). This paper employs three variables: income, happiness, and food security. The study investigates two correlations: (1) between income and food security, and (2) between happiness and food security. Therefore, the research question is “What is the relationship between income, food security, and happiness?”. This leads to two hypotheses: (1) there is a positive logarithmic correlation between income and food security, and (2) security as a basis to emphasize the importance of “active ageing” (Phulkerd et al., 2023). The study employed multivariate regression analysis (Phulkerd et al., 2023). Additionally, the researchers utilized a supplementary data using the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) to assess food security (Phulkerd et al., 2023). The theoretical frameworks included subjective well-being and psychosocial well-being (Phulkerd et al., 2023). Journal of Life and Medical Sciences Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne 7 www.naukowcy.org.pl is a positive linear correlation between happiness and food security. Data and methodology The variables are taken from different sources. For income, the dataset is from the World Bank, especially the GNI per capita, PPP-adjusted (World Bank, 2024). For happiness, the dataset used in this paper is taken from the World Happiness Report (WHR) (World Happiness Report, 2024). Finally, for food security, the data used is the Global Food Security Index (GFSI) taken from the Economist (The Economist, 2022a). The sample consists of 99 countries for 10 years from 2012 to 2022. GFSI is an annual report on global food security published by a body under the Economist called the Economist Impact (The Economist, 2022a). The Economist Impact itself is described as combining “the rigor of a think-tank with the creativity of a media brand to engage a globally influential audience” (The Economist, 2022b). It works in cooperation with Corteva Agriscience, which is a global agriculture company focused on delivering solutions for agricultural challenges (The Economist, 2022b). The Index considers the factors of affordability, availability, quality and safety, as well as sustainability and adaptation to provide the overall food security status (The Economist, 2022a). There are four statistical methods employed in this paper: (1) bivariate linear regression, (2) bivariate polynomial regression, (3) one-way ANOVA, and (4) paired T-test. All are conducted in R software. Each method has its own purpose. Bivariate linear regression is used to test the linear correlation between two variables. Polynomial regression is used to test the correlation between two variables when the correlation is nonlinear. In this context, the non-linearity tested is logarithmic. One-way ANOVA is used to compare whether there is a significant difference between the results of linear regression and polynomial regression. Finally, paired T-test is used to determine whether there is a significant difference between two datasets of the same sample. The research steps begin by testing bivariate linear regression for correlations between income and food security, as well as between happiness and food security. This is conducted for all countries within the scope of the study for each year. Then, bivariate polynomial regression for the same correlations and scopes is performed. Afterwards, each of the corresponding linear regression model and polynomial regression model are compared against each other using one-way ANOVA. These steps are all taken to determine whether the hypotheses are true: income and food security correlation is polynomial while happiness and food security correlation is linear. After the one-way ANOVA testing, if the income and food security correlation’s polynomial model shows significant difference with its linear model where the polynomial model fits better, it means the hypothesis regarding income and food security correlation is correct. In contrast, if the happiness and food security correlation’s polynomial and linear models do not show significant difference when compared against each other, it means the hypothesis regarding happiness and food security is correct. Before delving into the results of the analysis, the data used in this paper is presented. Figure 1. Equation of Regression Models 8 Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne www.naukowcy.org.pl Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne Table 1. Descriptive statistics of variables used in the study Results and discussions These are the results of both linear and polynomial correlations between income and food security as well as between happiness and food security: Table 2. Results of Linear and Polynomial Regression of Income-Food Security and HappinessFood Security Correlations Journal of Life and Medical Sciences Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne 9 www.naukowcy.org.pl Below is the visualization in the scattered plot for the relationship between income and food security: Figure 2. Visualization of comparison between linear (red) and polynomial (blue) regression models for income-food security correlation 10 Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne www.naukowcy.org.pl Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne Figure 3. Visualization of comparison between linear (red) and polynomial (blue) regression models for happiness-food security correlation Similarly, below is the visualization in the scattered plot for the relationship between happiness and food security: Journal of Life and Medical Sciences Nr 1/39/2025 I Nauki Przyrodnicze i Medyczne 11 www.naukowcy.org.pl The polynomial and linear regression models for both income-food security correlation and happinessfood security correlation are also compared using one-way ANOVA tests. Below are the results: Table 3. P-value results of one-way ANOVA tests between polynomial and linear regression models The results in Table 2 show that, across 10 years, all of the models in both correlations have P-value less than 0.05, which means that the correlations are statistically significant. However, when the R2-values are observed, within the income-food security correlation, the polynomial regression model always has higher R-squared values than the linear regression model in all years. This means that the correlation consistently fits the polynomial model better than the linear regression model. This is strengthened by the one-way ANOVA test results in Table 3 showing that the income and food security correlation comparison shows P-values less than 0.05, which means that the difference in variance is statistically significant. While polynomial regression is a better model for the relationship between income and food security than linear regression, the correlation between happiness and food security tells a different story. According to Table 2, the difference between R2-values of polynomial regression model and linear regression model only shows negligibly small differences. This is strengthened by Table 3’s one-way ANOVA results for that correlation, which shows P-values greater than 0.05, meaning no statistical significance in the variance between the two models. Figure 2 offers a visual representation to support these results. The blue and red lines are similar across all years. This is different from Figure 2 where the blue and red lines are significantly different, with the blue line fitting better to how the data points are spread across the scattered graph in all years. Since polynomial regression offers flexibility in predicting relationships with curved lines, while linear regression uses a straight line that limits prediction to only linear correlations, the significant difference in variance between polynomial and linear models in income-food security correlation means that the correlation is better suited to a polynomial model. Conversely, the insignificant difference in variance between the models in happiness-food security correlation means that a linear model is better suited for predicting the correlation because introducing flexibility into the model does not improve its prediction power. Overall, these results demonstrate that the correlation between income and food security has a logarithmic nature, while the relationship between happiness and food security has a linear nature. Furthermore, the figures show that, the direction of the correlations is positive: an increase in one variable corresponds to an increase in the other. The only difference is the increase rate: whereas for income-food security correlation, the increase in food security diminishes every time there is a marginal increase in income; meanwhile, for the happiness-food security correlation, the increase is always consistent across all variables.