Food prices soar under sanctions, millions pushed toward hunger

Sanctions are associated with an average increase of 1.24 percentage points in real food prices during sanction periods compared to non-sanction periods. More troubling, the prevalence of undernourishment, measured as the share of the population lacking sufficient dietary energy, increases by 2.1 percentage points under sanctions. For heavily populated and economically fragile countries, this translates into millions more people at risk of hunger.

A newly published empirical study establishes a direct and significant link between the imposition of economic sanctions and worsening food insecurity in developing countries. Titled “The Impacts of Economic Sanctions on Food (Prices) Security: Evidence From Targeted Countries”, the research appears in the journal The World Economy and represents one of the most comprehensive efforts to date to quantify the food-related consequences of sanctions on a global scale.

Do sanctions really cause hunger and price hikes?

The study answers a longstanding policy question with statistical clarity: yes, economic sanctions contribute to rising food prices and increased hunger in sanctioned nations. Using data from 90 countries between 2000 and 2022, the authors employed a two-way fixed effects framework with entropy balancing to simulate randomization and eliminate bias from observational data. They combined the Global Sanctions Database with food price and undernourishment data from FAOSTAT to track trends in food affordability and access.

Their findings are stark. Sanctions are associated with an average increase of 1.24 percentage points in real food prices during sanction periods compared to non-sanction periods. More troubling, the prevalence of undernourishment, measured as the share of the population lacking sufficient dietary energy, increases by 2.1 percentage points under sanctions. For heavily populated and economically fragile countries, this translates into millions more people at risk of hunger.

This research shifts the debate from anecdotal observations to evidence-backed causality. By mimicking experimental conditions, the entropy balancing method demonstrates that the relationship between sanctions and worsening food conditions is not coincidental but systemic. In countries like Nigeria, where over half of household income is spent on food, even minor price shocks can tip vast populations into food insecurity.

Which sanctions hurt the most and who’s most affected?

The analysis also disaggregates the impact of different sanction types, trade, financial, and travel, and identifies the most damaging combinations. Trade sanctions alone result in a 3.13 percentage point rise in food prices, while combinations of financial, trade, and travel sanctions increase prices by up to 3.62 percentage points. The same pattern is evident in hunger metrics: undernourishment increases most under trade sanctions (2.51 percentage points), with multilayered sanctions (financial, trade, and travel combined) not far behind (2.38 percentage points).

Furthermore, sanctions from specific senders show varied outcomes. European Union sanctions result in the largest increase in food prices, 3.07 percentage points, while sanctions from the UN are most strongly associated with increased undernourishment, raising the PoU by 5.7 percentage points. In contrast, U.S. sanctions have no statistically significant effect on food prices, though their political influence remains substantial.

The study also explores the effects by trade status. In net food-importing countries, sanctions intensify food insecurity by increasing prices. For net exporters, while prices may decline due to surplus supply, undernourishment still rises, suggesting that export pressure may reduce domestic availability of food. This is compounded by the finding that food production levels remain stagnant during sanctions, while food exports paradoxically increase, a sign that sanctioned governments may be prioritizing foreign currency earnings over local food needs.

Through what channels do sanctions undermine food security?

The researchers identify several transmission mechanisms. First, sanctions disrupt food imports by increasing trade and transport costs, limiting access to upstream inputs like seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. This damages agro-processing and value chains, particularly in countries dependent on imported agricultural technology. Sanctions also reduce energy and transportation reliability, which further increases prices at every step from farm to consumer.

Second, sanctions lower agricultural productivity by restricting access to physical inputs and innovation. During sanction periods, cereal yields and irrigation rates decline, exacerbating food supply constraints. Many sanctioned nations are heavily reliant on agricultural aid and technology transfers from the very countries that often impose sanctions. Without these, productivity drops, and domestic food systems weaken.

Third, sanctions create economic instability and speculative behavior. They reduce purchasing power, increase inequality, and promote hoarding. When food aid is curtailed, as often happens when donors also serve as sanctioning agents, reliance on volatile domestic markets becomes a matter of survival. The consequence is not only price inflation but also a worsening dietary quality as households shift toward cheaper, less nutritious options.

Lastly, sanctions influence food trade behavior. The study finds that while food imports remain largely unaffected, food exports rise during sanction periods. This counterintuitive outcome may stem from governments seeking hard currency by selling food abroad, despite domestic shortages. The net result is increased undernourishment due to reduced domestic availability.

Policy implications: Are sanctions morally justifiable?

Economic sanctions impose disproportionate burdens on the most vulnerable populations, those least responsible for their governments’ political actions, the study concludes. The increase in food prices and undernourishment rates directly threatens human security, undermines development goals, and raises urgent ethical questions about the use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool.

They call for urgent policy attention to mitigate these unintended consequences. Recommendations include exempting essential agricultural imports and humanitarian food aid from sanctions, supporting domestic food production systems in sanctioned countries, and revisiting the legal frameworks that govern food trade restrictions under international sanctions regimes.