Liberal trade policy and food insecurity across the income distribution: an observational analysis in 132 countries, 2014–17
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eradicating food insecurity is necessary for achieving global health goals. Liberal trade policies might increase food supplies but how these policies influence individual-level food insecurity remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the association between liberal trade policies and food insecurity at the individual level, and whether this association varies across country-income and household-income groups. METHODS: For this observational analysis, we combined individual-level data from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN with a country-level trade policy index from the Konjunkturforschungsstelle Swiss Economic Institute. We examined the association between a country's trade policy score and the probability of individuals reporting moderate-severe or severe food insecurity using regression models and algorithmic weighting procedures. We controlled for multiple covariates, including gross domestic product, democratisation level, and population size. Additionally, we examined heterogeneity by country and household income. RESULTS: Our sample comprised 460 102 individuals in 132 countries for the period of 2014-17. Liberal trade policy was not significantly associated with moderate-severe or severe food insecurity after covariate adjustment. However, among households in high-income countries with incomes higher than US$25 430 per person per year (adjusted for purchasing power parity), a unit increase in the trade policy index (more liberal) corresponded to a 0·07% (95% CI -0·10 to -0·04) reduction in the predicted probability of reporting moderate-severe food insecurity. Among households in the lowest income decile (<$450 per person per year) in low-income countries, a unit increase in the trade policy index was associated with a 0·35% (0·06 to 0·60) increase in the predicted probability of reporting moderate-severe food insecurity. INTERPRETATION: The relationship between liberal trade policy and food insecurity varied across countries and households. Liberal trade policy was predominantly associated with lower food insecurity in high-income countries but corresponded to increased food insecurity among the world's poorest households in low-income countries. FUNDING: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".