First published in 2013; substantive revision December 7, 2017.

This entry focuses on the history of famine and famine mortality over time. Our data include information only up to 2016. This does not include any data on the current food emergencies affecting Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and Ethiopia. More information on these crises can be found at FEWS.net.

A famine is an acute episode of extreme hunger that results in excess mortality due to starvation or hunger-induced diseases.1 It is this crisis characteristic that distinguishes it from persistent malnutrition, which we discuss in another entry on this website. As we discuss in the Data Quality and Definition section below, the term ‘famine’ can mean different things to different people and has evolved over time. It is only in recent years that more precise, measurable definitions – in terms of mortality rates, food consumption and physical signs of malnutrition – have been developed.

But despite these ambiguities, it is nonetheless very clear that in recent decades the presence of major life-taking famines has diminished significantly and abruptly as compared to earlier eras. This is not in anyway to underplay the very real risk facing the roughly 80 million people currently living in a state of crisis-level2 food insecurity and therefore requiring urgent action. Nevertheless, the parts of the world that continue to be at risk of famine represent a much more limited geographic area than in previous eras, and those famines that have occurred recently have typically been far less deadly – as we will go on to show in this entry.

For this entry we have assembled a new global dataset on famines from the 1860s until 2016. We estimate that in total 128 Million people died in famines over this period.3

Famines have always occurred as the result of a complex mix of ‘technical’ and ‘political’ factors,4 but the developments of the modern industrial era have generally reduced the salience of natural constraints in causing famine. This includes many developments discussed in other pages of Our World in Data, such as the increasing availability of food per person, made possible through increasing agricultural yields; improvements in healthcare and sanitation; increased trade; reduced food prices and food price volatility; as well as reductions in the number of people living in extreme poverty. Over time, famines have become increasingly “man-made”-phenomena, becoming more clearly attributable to political causes, including non-democratic government and conflict. Paradoxically, over the course of the 20th century famine was virtually eradicated from most of the world, whilst over the same period there occurred some of the worst famines in recorded history. This is because many of the major famines of the 20th century were the outcome of wars or totalitarian regimes. As such, the waning of the very high levels of warfare over the last decades (as seen in the reduced number of battle deaths in recent times) and the spread of democratic institutions has also played a large part in the substantial reduction in famine mortality witnessed in recent decades.

Emergency food aid provided by relief agencies continues to play a crucial role in preventing loss of life, and the international relief community has recently developed much better monitoring systems, such as the Famine Early Warning System, that has allowed for greater preparation and more timely interventions. Where poor harvests are the main cause of famine, as in Niger in 2005, relief provision tends to prevent marked increases in mortality. It is the presence of conflict, or abuses of political power that can block food supplies reaching populations which represents the most pertinent trigger of ‘death-dealing’ famines today.5

Thus, overall, we can see in the rapid decline of famine mortality one of the great accomplishments of our era, representing technological progress, economic development and the spread of stable democracies. Viewed in this light, however, it also serves to highlight the appalling continued presence of famines which are, in the modern world, entirely man-made.

The entry is based on a global dataset of famines since the mid-19th century produced by us. This ‘Our World in Data-Dataset of Famines’ can be found at the very end of this document and is preceded by a discussion of how this dataset was constructed and on which sources it is based.

Empirical View

Long-run global view

Famines since 1860

This visualisation shows the number of famine victims globally over the last 16 decades. The data is taken from the table of famines that you find at the very end of this entry.

The number of famine victims by decade, 1860s-2010s6

Famine victims since 1860s march18

Rate of people dying due to famines since 1860

The following visualisation places the number of victims in relation to world population. As you can see, the recent reduction in the number of people dying due to famines is even starker when we consider this relative to the large increase in population that has taken place over the same time. The data is taken from the table of famines that you find at the very end of this entry.

The rate of famine deaths by decade, 1860s-2010s7

Famine death rate since 1860s revised

Individual famines since 1860

The visualisation below shows the estimated number of deaths caused by individual famines. The length of the line shows the duration of the famine. The colour of the line shows the continent in which the famine occurred. Whilst there are some stark exceptions – such as the deaths related to the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the mortality estimate for which is discussed further in the Data Quality section below) – the chart shows that the second half of the twentieth century, compared to the first half, saw far fewer catastrophic famines with mortalities in the millions.

Famine deaths and duration of individual famines, 1860s-2010s8

The number of famine victimes for each famine revised

Increasingly limited parts of the world are affected by famine

From the chart below, you can see that, while in earlier periods Asia suffered heavily from major famines, this came to a halt over the mid-20th century. Since then, famines have almost exclusively been restricted to Africa, with the famine in North Korea during the 1990s being an important exception.

This can also be viewed as a bar chart here.

Famines by world region, 1860s-2010s9

Famines by continent and me 01

Long run view for single countries


In today’s developed countries peacetime famines had largely ceased by the mid-19th century.10 In England this was achieved at least a century earlier. The following graph shows estimates of crude population increase – the number of births minus the number of deaths divided by the population – taken from Campbell (2009).11

These figures are based on a national sample of parish register entries, which are available with good coverage from 1538 when the registration of baptisms, marriages and burials become enforced. By comparing the price of grain (which was well documented in England from the twelfth century onwards) with estimates for real wages and grain yields, the author was able to make reasoned speculations about which of the documented sudden drops in population were likely to have resulted from famine, as opposed to disease epidemics unrelated to food shortages. The idea is that even if harvests were bad, if there was no simultaneous rise in grain prices it seems more likely that disease would have been the main driver of population losses, as opposed to famine (the lower population reducing the demand for food, thereby offsetting the reduced supply to keep prices roughly level).

Those population crises potentially consisting of famine conditions are indicated with an ‘F’ in the visualization below. The last was in 1741-2 which was “brought on by an extreme short-term weather anomaly of at least three-years’ duration” that affected much of northwest Europe, causing an even more severe famine in Ireland.

Estimated crude rates of natural increase in England, 1550–1849, with possible famines highlighted – Campbell (2009)



Saito (2010) has created a chronology of famines in Japan since the 6th century. Before the 14th century data is judged to be incomplete (although the records for the 8th and 9th are surprisingly complete – there were more than 35 famines in each of the two centuries).

The number and intensity of famines is shown as ‘points’ in Saito’s visualisation below: 1 point being given to widespread famines, 0.5 points being given to more localised events.

Overall Saito’s chronology comprises information on 281 famines. None of these 281 famines happened in the twentieth century and the following graph shows that the end of starvation in Japan arrived gradually. Before 1550 there were more than 10 famines per 50 year-interval and since then famines have became less and less common in Japan.

The number of famine points by half-century, 1300-1900 – Saito (2010)12Famines in japan over the long run

Famines over the very long-run in particular areas of the world

Similar chronologies of famines in single countries are being put together at Wikipedia:

Here is Wikipedia’s list of famines in Ethiopia.

Here is Wikipedia’s list of famines in India during the British rule and here is the entry on famines in India.

And here is Wikipedia’s list of famines in China.

How frequent were famines in the distant past?

It is very difficult to know how common famines were in the distant past given the absence of historical record.

As noted by the World Peace Foundation, “generally speaking, better demographic calculations lead to lower estimations of excess deaths than those provided by journalists and other contemporary observers. We might therefore reasonably expect an upward bias in the figures for earlier famines on the record.” On the other hand, there is an obvious risk that existing historical records underreport long-past famines and the number of their victims due to the lack of documentation being made at the time or their being lost subsequently. Loveday, an early researcher of Indian famines, noted in 1914 that, “The frequency of the mention of famine in the later history […] increases in exact proportion with the precision and accuracy in detail of her historians.”13

At least in proportionate terms, it seems safe to conclude that the nineteenth century suffered far more intensely from famine than did the twentieth century, with Ó Gráda (2007)14 considering one hundred million deaths a ‘conservative estimate’ for the nineteenth century as a whole: higher than the combined figure for the twentieth century, and in the context of a much lower population15.

On the other hand, it seems unlikely that famines dominated to the degree assumed by some early famine scholars such as Robert Malthus, not least because ‘normal’ mortality rates would have been very high anyhow. “Given that life expectancy was low even in noncrisis years, frequent famines would have made it impossible to sustain population”, concludes Ó Gráda (2007).

Based on consideration of a patchwork of burial records and other historical accounts, Menken and Watkins (1985) conclude that famines in which death rates doubled for two years or more were ‘rare’, and that famines of even greater intensity were ‘highly unusual’, if they occurred at all.16

From what evidence there is, it seems unlikely that famine served as a primary check to population growth in the past, with non-crisis malnutrition and disease generating high enough death rates to act as “more potent positive checks on population growth in the long run than the Third Horseman.”17

Correlates, Determinants & Consequences

Why do famines occur?

In this section we look at what factors explain the reduction in famine deaths in some regions and reasons why famines continue to blight some parts of the world. The section following looks at the long-term impacts of famine.

Food supply

We might naturally tend to associate famine with drought or other natural phenomena, and indeed most documented famines have occurred in the context of harvest failures, often due to droughts or flooding. However, in recent times, aggregate food availability per person has increased dramatically, and given the comparable ease of transportation and communication, localized shortfalls can – in theory at least – be met by importing food from surplus areas far quicker and at a much lower cost nowadays. As such, lack of overall food availability per se plays a less prominent role in causing famine today than it did historically.

Better integrated food markets have on the whole helped to ease acute localized food price volatility due to bad harvests. Food shortages that lead to higher prices create an incentive for traders to increase the supply of food, thereby preventing shortages developing into outright food crises.

Thus the absence of markets, or presence of badly functioning markets, can be a key part of why people are not able to obtain enough food. Where means of transport is lacking, trade between surplus and deficit regions can be hampered, as well as making the distribution of food aid much harder during crises. Comparable climatic conditions that sparked two famines in northern China, in the 1870s and 1920s respectively, brought about 9-13 million deaths in the first case and half a million in the latter. One important difference that can explain this moderated impact is the availability of greatly improved transport infrastructure that was constructed in the interim which allowed for prompt relief efforts to take place. The more limited development of transport infrastructure in parts of Africa has played a contributory role in a number of recent famines on the continent.18

Where markets function badly, supply may be restricted ‘artificially’. For example, Amartya Sen argues that ‘speculative withdrawal and panic purchase of rice stocks’ was one of the primary causes of the Bengali famine of 1943, which turned a ‘moderate short-fall in production… into an exceptional short-fall in market release’.19

Where traders have some monopoly power over local markets, hoarding can be a way of increasing profits by making prices rise. Even without monopoly power, where traders collectively expect prices to increase, for whatever reason, it can make sense for them not to sell storable food to final consumers immediately, but rather wait for the higher prices, thereby restricting the current overall supply to consumers. Again, this is part of the normal functioning of a market which encourages food to be transferred from periods of relative plenty to those of relative scarcity. But where such trading leads to excessive speculation on price increases, ‘price bubbles’ can emerge such that prices no longer bear any relation to the actual relative scarcity any more. In this sense badly functioning markets can produce ‘artificial’ scarcities, where food is prevented from reaching final consumers not because of actual falls in production, but only due to the anticipation of higher future prices.

Such self-fulfilling expectations of price increases can occur simply where people have mutually reinforcing, but nonetheless mistaken beliefs about future supply. According to Ravaillion (1987),20 such a dynamic was indeed at play during the Bangladesh famine, in which food prices soared despite there being no significant drop in food production or in overall food availability per person. He suggests that the severe flooding that occurred during the famine created the expectation of a shortfall and related price increases, but that the resulting panic buying and price speculation themselves brought about the scarcity, rather than any realised drop in production. It is argued by others that food price speculation at the time was directed towards a perceived weakness in the government’s ability to continue with a policy of buying food at below-market prices in order to keep prices from rising too much.21 For instance, where a weather event (such as the severe flooding that occurred during the Bangladesh famine of 1974) makes people think there will be shortages, resulting panic buying and price speculation can itself then produce scarcity artificially.

The following chart, taken from Ó Gráda (2006), shows the very dramatic peak in food prices during the Bangladesh famine that happened despite there being no decline in overall food availability. It also shows a sharp increase in the differences in food prices between different regions in Bangladesh (as measured by the standard deviation). This is evidence that, during the famine, markets became more spatially segregated – i.e. that food was not able to move to those regions where it was in highest demand, and thereby lower local price differences. The absence of properly functioning markets thus contributed to the localized scarcities.

Average Rice Prices and Regional Variation in Bangladesh 1972-7522

Rice price during the famine in bangladesh

International aid continues to play a large role in addressing food security, both in emergency situations and to help relieve more persistent periods of food insufficiency (the World Food Program collects data on the quantity and value of international food aid and is available here). The development of better monitoring systems, such as the Famine Early Warning System, has given the international relief community more advanced notice of developing food crises, although such early warnings by no means guarantee a sufficient aid response, nor that secure access to affected areas will be granted.

Thus, whilst drought or flood-caused crop failure might naturally seem to be high up on a list of causes of famine, this was far truer of famines in the past. Nowadays, crop failure is better understood as an important contributing factor rather than a sufficient cause of famine: food crises due simply to localized drops in production do not tend to develop into full-blown famines with high excess mortality unless exacerbated through more overtly human influences.


As Amartya Sen argued, the fact that there may be enough food available in aggregate within a given area does not necessarily mean that everyone will be able to afford it.23

Food crises are often precipitated by spikes in the price of food relative to wages, or the collapse in the price of assets owned. The latter commonly accompanies famines due to many people all at once trying to sell their assets (for instance their livestock) in order to be able to buy more food. Such shocks can mean that those already living close to the level of subsistence may find their ‘exchange entitlement’ – that which they can obtain on the market in exchange for their labour or other assets – fails to provide them with enough food, even if the aggregate local supply is sufficient.

Wealthy countries have very few people living in such extreme absolute poverty, both because of higher incomes before tax and benefits, but also due higher government expenditures and transfers. It is therefore unsurprising that those countries in which famines occur do tend to be very poor. Here we show the inflation-adjusted income per capita of each country at the time they experienced a famine, with some reference points on the vertical axis. As you can see, most countries in which a famine took place had, at the time, average incomes less than half of that of the UK at the outset of its industrial revolution. You can see that average incomes in India – a country that historically suffered very heavily from famine – has grown rapidly in recent decades, and at the same time has been famine free. African countries, conversely, have on the whole has remained very poor and make up the majority of recent famines.

Famines and gdp


As well as proxying for the presence of extreme poverty, this relationship also reflects the fact that poorer countries also tend have less adequate facilities like transport infrastructure, sanitation and systems of healthcare that play a key role in preventing or moderating the impacts of food shortages.

Whilst poverty certainly increases the vulnerability of a country, we should be careful not to think of it as the single, or even the most important, cause of famine, given the typically political nature of most outbreaks of famine.

Democracy and oppression

Amartya Sen famously noted in his 1999 book Development as Freedom that “there has never been a famine in a functioning multiparty democracy”. He suggested that democratic authorities are incentivized by elections to be more responsive to food crises and that the presence of a free press can quickly draw attention to the event and hold government to account.

Whilst exceptions to this rule can be found – depending on the definition of ‘democracy’ and ‘famine’ being employed – the following visualization corroborates the idea that famines tend not to happen in democracies, by grouping them according to the political regime under which they took place. Here we use our list of famines since 1850 which can be found at the bottom of this page, and we define the political regime type according to the Polity IV score (discussed more in our entry on Democracy), collecting the various scores into three clusters: Democracy (>5), Autocracy or Anocracy (-10 to 5), and Colony (-20).

Famines since 1850 by political regime24

Famines by pol regime

According to the definitions we have adopted, three famines since 1850 took place in democracies. However, in two of them the ‘democratic’ classification is rather ill-fitting. The St. Lawrence Island famine of 1878-80 is listed as occurring in the USA. However, it took place on a very remote Alaskan island populated by the indigenous Yupik people, that had relatively little interaction with mainland USA. In the case of Sudan, according to its Polity IV score, there was a brief spell of democracy, following elections held in 1986. But it is somewhat misleading to consider the famine occurring in southern Sudan in 1988 as happening under conditions of a functioning democracy. It took place during the Second Sudanese Civil War, which was organized primarily along a North/South division and marked by many human rights violations. According to Wikipedia, in the majority of seats in the southern regions voting was in fact suspended for the 1986 election.

In the third case, that of Maharashtra in India in 1972-3, whilst there is no ambiguity as to the political regime type, there has been some disagreement as to whether excess mortality in fact occurred. This is discussed further in the Data Quality and Definition section below. In any case, whilst in absolute terms it is certain that the drought caused enormous suffering, whatever excess mortality that did occur in Maharashtra was very much lower than the major famines occurring under totalitarian regimes in roughly the same period.

It is important to note, however, that the question of how often famines have occurred within democracies crucially depends upon the definition of famine being used. In particular, what, if any, excess mortality lower-bound is being used yields different answers. As Thomas Plümper and Eric Neumayer (2007)25 point out, a number of smaller-scale events in which drought-related mortality did occur have happened in functioning democracies. As the authors argue, even within democracies it can still be politically advantageous for governments to allow small minorities to starve if in doing so they are able to win more votes by distributing benefits to others. As discussed in the Data Quality and Definition section below, in compiling our table we have omitted events where the excess mortality is estimated to be lower than one thousand deaths, to reflect that the term “famine” has in its common usage typically been reserved for larger-scale events with crisis characteristics. This leaves only the three democracy famine events discussed above. Regardless of the threshold though, the main point remains the same: famines tend not to occur in democracies, and none of the catastrophic life-taking famines documented in history have occurred in the context of functioning democratic institutions.

War and famines

Many of the major famine events in our table occurred as the consequence of international or civil war. For some of these, famine was used as an intentional part of political or military strategy. The ‘Hunger Plan’ pursued by Nazi Germany as part of its attempted invasion of the Soviet Union is an example of the latter. Despite the plan only being partially executed, over 4.5 million famine deaths are attributed to the offensive,26 significantly more than have occurred globally since the turn of the 21st Century.

In terms of more recent events, from the second half of the 20th century onwards, famines in Africa have become increasingly associated with civil war, and include a number of crises in places that were not previously prone to famines at all, such as Mozambique and Biafra in Nigeria. In addition to the direct casualties, conflict can also generate disruption to production and trade and can encourage the spread of disease epidemics, particularly through forced migration.27 Crucially, it can also block the arrival of humanitarian relief to those in need.

It is mainly in the context of conflict that major death-dealing famines can be expected today. The majority of ‘areas of concern’ currently noted by the Famine Early Warning System are listed with armed conflict mentioned in the ‘reasons for concern’.28

Poor health and infectious diseases

It is important to note that, as opposed to dying from literal starvation, the vast majority of people that die during famines actually succumb to infectious disease or other illnesses, with some diseases being more directly linked to diet than others. Famines brought on by drought often go hand-in-hand with a scarcity of clean drinking water that increases the threat of cholera and other diseases. Increased migration and the disruption of personal hygiene and sanitation routines and healthcare systems also increases the risk of outbreaks of infections diseases, all in the context of a population already weakened through malnourishment.

This is particularly true in places where such diseases are already endemic. Thus, in sub-Saharan Africa where vaccination rates for measles have been relatively low, the disease has been a big killer during modern famines in the region alongside other infectious and parasitic diseases common in non-crisis times.29

The following table is taken from Ó Gráda and Mokyr (2002) showing the percentages of excess deaths during a selection of famines attributable to different proximate causes, including the most typical famine diseases. In each case, it can be seen that communicable diseases were the ultimate cause of death in the majority of cases. (Note that, for India and Moscow, the excess mortality attributable to starvation is not available separately).

Causes of excess deaths in selected famines in Ireland, Russia and India – Ó Gráda and Mokyr (2002)30

Causes of excess deaths in selected famines in Ireland, Russia and India – Ó Gráda and Mokyr (2002)

This is in contrast to some famines that occurred in industrialised countries during WWII, in a context of overall healthier populations and systems of sanitation that were maintained to some degree despite the crisis. In these instances disease played far less of a role, with deaths from starvation correspondingly higher. Ó Gráda (2009)31 gives the example of the siege of Leningrad in which “few of Leningrad’s 0.8 million or so victims perished of contagious diseases,” noting that the number of people dying from the main infectious diseases were actually lower in 1941 – amidst an overall vast increase in excess mortality – than they had been in 1940 before the blockade began.

Demographic impact

Famines clearly can have a very significant demographic impact in the short term, with drops in birth rates and increased emigration often playing as important a role as increases in mortality rates. In terms of long run demographics, however, secular shifts in the ‘normal’ birth and death rates tends to dwarf the effect of even the most dramatic population crises. Whilst in the absence of comprehensive historic demographic records it is difficult to say anything conclusive, contemporary scholarship would suggest that famines have typically played a fairly minor role in long term demographics, even long ago.32

Besides encouraging outward migration, if famines are to have a lasting demographic impact it must be through “teaching” populations to have fewer children. Whilst there is some evidence of such behavior change in the wake of certain famines, it is also not uncommon for suppressed birth rates during famine-time to be followed by spikes in births post-famine, acting to bring the overall population back towards trend.

The Great Leap Forward famine in China – the single biggest famine event in history in terms of absolute number of deaths – followed such a pattern. As you can see, the peak in death rates and dip in birth rates was followed by a significant spike in birth rates after the event, whilst death rates returned roughly to their previous trend, thereby creating a rebound in total population. Despite causing an excess mortality of 2-5% of the total population, within 15 years the population had returned to its pre-famine trend.

Long-term demographic impact of China’s Great Leap Forward Famine33

Demographic impact of china’s great leap forward famine

Data Quality & Definition

This entry is based on our ‘Our World in Data-Dataset of Famines’ which covers the period since the mid-19th century and which can be found at the end of this document. In the following we discuss how famines are defined and in particular our reasoning for how we constructed the dataset.

Intensity vs. magnitude of famines

Today the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) provides a definition of 5 levels of food insecurity of increasing severity, with level 5 constituting famine. According to the IPC, in order for a food insecurity situation to be declared a famine it must meet three specific criteria:

  1. At least one in five households faces an extreme lack of food
  2. More than 30 per cent of the population is suffering from acute malnutrition (wasting)
  3. At least two people out of every 10,000 are dying each day

Whilst providing a more objective, and hence de-politicized, benchmark for declaring a famine – vital for eliciting a timely humanitarian response – a key aspect of the IPC classification is to provide a graduated system that fits the reality of food crises better than a binary ‘famine or no-famine’ approach. Notice that it focuses on the intensity of the crisis. As discussed by Howe and Devereux (2004)34, this is distinct from the magnitude of the event, typically understood in terms of the total (excess) mortality that occurred. In compiling our table of famine deaths over time, we have naturally used estimates of the latter. It is important to note that there is no institutionally-agreed classification of famines in terms of magnitude. Indeed, for some people, a crisis that resulted in no excess mortality might still be properly considered a famine under some circumstances – there are many terrible outcomes that a severe food crisis can produce other than mortality, such as losses of livelihoods or long-term health impacts. Nevertheless, in producing our table we decided to implement a lower threshold of mortality for an crisis to be included (see Famines with low mortality, below).

It is worth seeing that these two dimensions – intensity and magnitude – whilst clearly related are nevertheless independent of each other. A very high-intensity famine, resulting in high mortality rates, may only effect a very small group of people and thus represent a relatively low-magnitude event. Or a low-intensity crisis may extend across a wide area and over a long period, resulting in a high-magnitude famine. A threshold in terms of intensity (i.e. IPC level 5) does not, therefore, straightforwardly map onto any given magnitude threshold.

Is mortality from the current ongoing food crises included?

Our visualisations show data relating to the period up to and including 2016. No estimates of excess mortality for the major food emergencies currently affecting Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and Ethiopia have to our knowledge been released. However, in each case, there was a crisis-level food insecurity in 2016 present also. It is therefore possible that as any such estimates emerge, some excess mortality will be seen as having occurred in 2016. This is particularly pertinent to the case of South Sudan, an area of which was officially declared as being in famine throughout early 2017 according to the IPC system. We will update our table accordingly as more clear information becomes available.

Incomplete or inaccurate historical record

In constructing our table of famine mortality over time, we have relied on a variety of secondary sources (listed below), themselves generated from historical accounts that did not make use of such precise definitions, nor would they have been able to do so given the absence of demographic records. Even if we may imagine a relative degree of conformity through time to the notion that famine consists of ‘a widespread lack of food leading directly to excess mortality from starvation or hunger-induced illnesses’,35 it is important to note that most of the mortality estimates listed in our table are typically very rough and are often the subject of a good deal of controversy (some examples are discussed in more detail below).

It should be borne in mind that there may be many motives for different observers, record keepers or historians to (intentionally or otherwise) over- or underestimate mortality levels according to their sympathies with the affected population or suspected perpetrators.36 As noted by the World Peace Foundation“generally speaking, better demographic calculations lead to lower estimations of excess deaths than those provided by journalists and other contemporary observers. We might therefore reasonably expect an upward bias in the figures for earlier famines on the record [i.e. from 1870s].”

The earlier back one goes though, the more one might suspect that the written historical record is incomplete. We start our table from the 1860s. Whilst records for this period are no doubt more complete than earlier times,  it is likely that some smaller events that would count as famines by today’s standards may not have been recognized or recorded as such and are therefore missing from our table.

How is excess mortality estimated?

The aim of the table below is to show estimates of ‘excess mortality’ – that is to say, the extra number of deaths that occurred during the famine as compared to the number there would have been had the famine not occurred. As noted above, it should be borne in mind that those dying of infectious diseases during famines are normally also included in this. As such, mortality estimates typically try to subtract the ‘normal’ death rate – that expected in the famine’s absence – from the actual total death rate during the famine. Estimating the latter is far from straightforward given the paucity of reliable demographic statistics typical of even recent famines. This also requires making assumptions about what the ‘normal’ death rate is, leaving even more room for disagreement (see discussion of the Democratic Republic of Congo famine below for an example).

Given this focus on excess mortality, some severe food insecurity situations involving high levels of mortality can nonetheless result in next to no excess mortality where the ‘normal’ death rate for the area in question is already very high. Niger in 2005, which many observers at the time considered to be a famine, is an example of this.37 It is worth noting as well that what is ‘normal’ changes through time. Modern definitions of famine include criteria for nutrition and mortality that would correspond to conditions typical or near-typical of non-crisis conditions in earlier periods for much of the world.38


How should war famines be taken into account?

It should be noted that, based on the work of Alex de Waal at the World Peace Foundation, included in our famine list is a number of events that are described as ‘episodes of mass intentional starvation’. Some of these events are not included in other lists of major famine events of the 20th century (notably some of them are missing from Stephen Devereux’s much-cited 2000 paper, Famine in the twentieth century39). This suggests that some authors might consider these deaths to be attributable more to conflict and not reliably attributable to famine. Nonetheless, we decided to include these events in our table. Our reasoning here is that the excess mortality associated to many of the famines listed in Devereux (2000) would not have occurred in the absence of conflict, and many of them are not without similar controversy (see below for some more discussion). Thus any distinction between ‘famine’ and ‘episodes of mass intentional starvation’ seems to be a matter of degree, and as such there appeared no clear reason not to include the latter in our table.

Some controversial mortality estimates

Famines with very low mortality

In our table we have excluded crises where reported excess mortality was lower than 1,000. Our reasons for doing so were twofold. Firstly, in the context of very large margins of error for many of the famines in our table (with upper and lower estimates of excess mortality sometimes several millions apart), we felt that including events in which very few people are recorded as dying might give a misleading impression of the accuracy of the rest of the estimates in the table. Secondly, for many people, excess mortality (due to starvation or hunger-induced diseases) would normally be seen as an integral part of what it means for a crisis to constitute a famine.40 It should be noted that there might be good reasons to make use of a definition of famine that allows for zero or very low excess mortality.41 Nevertheless we felt some lower threshold would be appropriate, though the exact cut-off was a somewhat arbitrary choice.

One of our main data sources is the International Disaster Database, which lists mortality estimates for a range of disasters. In particular, it provides data on a number of smaller-scale events often not given in the main lists of major famines we have used. We considered those events listed as ‘Droughts’ as being famines, though we excluded any such disasters with a mortality estimate lower than 1,000 as per our threshold.

In addition, we also chose to omit two recent drought events listed in the database for China of 1,400 and 2,000 excess deaths in 1988 and 1991 respectively, having failed to find any corroborating cross-references to famine having occurred in these years.

Relatedly, some events often described as famines are not included in the table below where the reported excess mortality is considered to be in some sense ‘negligible’. As with shifting understandings of what the ‘normal’, non-crisis death rate consists of, no doubt this is a threshold that has changed considerably over time as demographic analysis of famines has become more precise and excess mortality a relatively rare event. Examples of potentially controversial omissions we have made along these lines include the Highland Potato Famine in Scotland (1846-56), the Bihar famine in India 1966-7 (discussed in more detail below) and Niger in 2005.

Various secondary sources that we have used to compile our table (listed in the Data Sources section below) themselves use some excess mortality cut-off, but one typically higher than our threshold of 1,000. This means that there may exist records of famines of a magnitude larger than 1,000 excess deaths that are not included in our table (if they did not appear in the International Disaster Database).42 However given the large-magnitude events in our table, this can only have had a very small effect on the overall trend outlined in our charts.


Famines in independent India: Bihar 1966-67 and Maharashtra 1972-3

The International Disaster Database lists a drought in India in 1965 as killing 1.5 million people. The only food crisis around this time that we could find cross-references for was that in Bihar, more commonly cited as occurring in 1966-67. Official statistics, however, suggest very low excess mortality. Indeed, the famine was sometimes invoked as evidencing that independent India had turned a corner in its development, such that it could now cope with a serious drought without sustaining major loss of life.

Dyson and Maharatna (1992),43 however, regarded the official mortality data to be highly deficient. They concluded that ‘while the available data show little sign of excess mortality in Bihar, we probably cannot exclude this possibility’. Drèze (1990) similarly came to the conclusion that ‘there is precious little evidence to support the self-congratulatory statements that have commonly been made about the Bihar famine, e.g. “no exceptional mortality was recorded” or “no one died of starvation”.’44

For our table we decided to exclude this famine given such uncertainty. Notably, we chose to excluded the EM-DAT figure for 1965: such a high mortality seems questionable given the absence of other corroborating references.

Similar issues surrounded the determination of an excess mortality figure for the Maharashtra crisis in 1972-3. For Drèze (1990) it is clear that, whilst “the crisis was of extreme severity, famine was uncontroversially averted“. This was largely due to an enormous public employment programme which at its peak employed as many as 5 million people in Maharashtra state alone.

Whilst Drèze considers the available demographic statistics to imply that “mortality rose only marginally, if at all,”, and notes that that there were no confirmed instances of ‘starvation deaths’, Dyson and Maharatna (1992) insist that the mortality rates do imply a significant excess mortality of 130,000. They arrive at this conclusion based on adjusting the figures to account for systematic under-registration of deaths, the pre-crisis trend in mortality rates, inter-census population growth and the possibility of excess mortality also occurring in 1972.

In keeping with many other of our listed famine mortality estimates, we decided to provide that figure cited by Devereux (2000),45 itself quoting the 130,000 figure from Dyson’s work.

It is worth seeing though that our choice to attribute a mortality figure to the Maharashtra drought, but not that of Bihar, stands in contrast to the conclusion of Drèze (1990) – based on consideration of nutrition surveys, asset disposals and land sales (signs of acute distress), and the extent of migration – that the Bihar famine struck considerably harder. Nevertheless, in the absence of a specific mortality estimate for the Bihar famine it has been excluded from our list of famines. In any case, the level of uncertainty surrounding both of these famines should be borne in mind.


Great Leap Forward Famine, China 1959-61

By far the largest single event in our table is that of China at the turn of the 1960s associated with the economic and social campaign led by Mao Zedong known as the Great Leap Forward. During and immediately after the Chinese famine, however, it remained ‘shrouded in mystery’, with the Chinese authorities and some Western observers insisting that, despite successive poor harvests, famine had been averted. In the post-Mao era of the early 1980s, some official demographic data was newly released allowing for the first systematic investigations of the death toll.

Initial results from this suggested an excess mortality of around 30 million, and this figure gained some currency. Subsequent estimates have tended to be lower.

One of the key issues is how these official data compare with UN estimates that exist for infant mortality and life expectancy for the period 1950-5, which imply significant under-registration in official data. Exactly what assumptions are made about such under-registration have consequences for the ultimate mortality estimate produced. There is necessarily a degree of arbitrariness to such assumptions, with different hypotheses often standing in contradiction to alternative sources of evidence such as historical documentation and conflicting with the demographic patterns typically observed in famines.

Whilst there is much uncertainty about the exact number of deaths attributable to the Great Leap Forward famine, it seems certain that it represents the single biggest famine event in history in absolute terms. Relative to the size of the population however, the death rate was “modest” compared to that of Ireland in the 1840s or Finland in 1867-8, and was comparable to that of the 1876-9 famine in China.

For our table we use the midpoint between the lowest and highest estimates given in our main sources, 15 million being the lower bound given by Ó Gráda (2009) and 33 million being the upper bound given by Devereux (2000).

A good summary of these issues is given by Ó Gráda (2008).


Democratic Republic of Congo, 1998-2007

The most commonly-cited excess mortality estimate for the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is the 5.4 million given in a 2007 report by the International Rescue Committee (IRC – report available here). The estimates were based on ‘retrospective mortality surveys’ in which interviewers asked a sample of respondents to report the number of deaths that had occurred within their household over a given period. These were then used to make inferences about the number of deaths across the country and, in conjunction with an assumed baseline mortality rate capturing the number of people that would have died anyway in the absence of the conflict, were used to generate the overall excess mortality figure.

Some controversy was generated in 2009 with the publication of the 2009/10 Human Security Report46 which presented a number of criticisms of the IRC methodology and argued that it had significantly overestimated the death toll. The key debate concerned the baseline mortality rate used, which the Human Security Report considered to be too low, thereby inflating in its view the number of deaths that could be associated to the conflict. In addition, the Report argued that the samples of respondents used in the earliest IRC surveys were unrepresentative and also too small to provide reliable estimates. In particular, it suggested that the areas visited were atypical in that many of them were selected because of there being existing or planned humanitarian operations already in the vicinity, so they were therefore likely to have higher mortality rates than the average location.

Contrariwise, the IRC authors point to the fact that access to some of the most insecure zones was impossible during the surveys, suggesting a sample bias in the opposite direction.

The overall argument of the Human Security Report is that the available data is not sufficient to form the basis for a credible excess mortality estimate, and any attempt to make one is very sensitive to the choice between a range of plausible alternatives and subject to a very wide margin of error. It does produce an estimate, but only for the period between 2001-7 for which the surveys conducted were more representative and numerous. The report’s ‘best estimate’ for excess mortality over this period is 863,000, compared to the 2,830,600 of the IRC for the same period. However, it points out that this is very sensitive to assumptions about whether the counterfactual baseline mortality rate should be considered to have a trend. For short-lived events a point estimate for the baseline mortality rate is sufficient. To estimate the excess mortality of a long-lived event, the report argues, one should allow for the possibility that the baseline mortality rate would have changed over this period in the absence of the event being studied. In the case of DRC it might be reasonable to assume that a negative trend in mortality rates observed prior to the outbreak of war would have continued, in which case the Report’s ‘best estimate’ for the 2001-7 period would increase to 1.5 million.

As such, the 863,000 figure that we include as a lower bound in our table should be treated with extreme caution in that it completely excludes the period prior to 2001 and also ignores the downward pre-trend in mortality rates (as does the IRC estimate).

On the other hand, all these estimates of excess mortality include ‘violent deaths’ i.e. those directly attributable to conflict and not to the ensuing famine conditions. The IPC report cited does not provide an exact number of violent deaths, but it does claim that “less than 10 percent of all deaths were due to violence, with most attributed to easily preventable and treatable conditions such as malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition”. As such we do not attempt to subtract violent deaths from the total.

North Korea, 1995-1999

The number of people that died in the North Korean famine remains highly uncertain, largely due to the closed nature of the country which has precluded access to official data and other channels of inquiry, such as surveys. Estimates range from the North Korean Government’s ‘quasi-official’ estimate of 220,000 to the 3.5 million arrived at by South Korean NGO, Good Friends Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Refugees by extrapolation from interviews conducted with refugees fleeing the country. Whilst one might naturally be suspicious of the Government’s own estimate, the approximate figure has been leant some credence by a recent study by Spoorenberg and Schwekendiek (2012). Via a reconstruction of demographic trends between 1993 and 2008 census data, the authors deduce an estimated mortality between 240,000 and 420,000. A rough consensus seems to have emerged that the 3.5 million is not reliable: the sample of interviewees – people from areas so badly affected that they sought to emigrate – was almost certainly unrepresentative of the country as a whole.47 Over time, estimates made via a variety of methods have tended suggest increasingly lower excess mortality. For instance, Goodkind and West (2001) put forward 600,000-1 million, with a subsequent study by Goodkind, West and Johnson (2011) suggesting a mortality towards the lower end of that range. Ho Il Moon in an article for VOX argues for a figure of 336,000, again based on reconstruction of intercensal demographics. We take as our lower bound the 240,000 from Spoorenberg and Schwekendiek (2012) and Goodkind, West and Johnson (2011)’s higher figure of 600,000 as our upper bound.48


Indonesia 1962-68

Pierre van der Eng collates local and international newspaper reports of a series of localized famines that may have affected specific parts of Indonesia intermittently during this period, against a backdrop of more generalized and persistent malnutrition in much of the country (his paper is partly available here). As news reports, these figures are clearly not necessarily all that reliable and naturally focus on total numbers of deaths rather than excess mortality. Nevertheless, taken together they probably do point towards some excess famine mortality. Moreover, this was a period of significant repression of press freedoms in which the Government appears to have sought to actively restrict reporting on food crises, such that the reports collated may only represent a subset of famine events that occurred.

In our table we include a zero lower bound and use van der Eng’s total figure of 135,400 deaths as the upper bound, taking the midpoint of these two for inclusion in the graphs presented in this entry.

Data Sources

Most of the visualisations in this entry are based on the ‘Our World in Data-Dataset of Famines’ assembled by us.

Our dataset is based on four main sources:

International Disaster Database (EM-DAT)
  • Data: Information on the occurrence of natural and technological disasters.
  • Geographical coverage: Global
  • Time span: 1900-present
  • Available at: Online at www.emdat.be
  •  We have used information on events listed as ‘Droughts’ with mortality estimates above 1,000 (see ‘Famines with low mortality’ above). Previously, there was a distinction in the database between droughts and famines, but these have been subsequently merged.

  •  This resource is published by  the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).  EM-DAT states that the database “contains essential core data on the occurrence and effects of over 18,000 mass disasters in the world from 1900 to present. The database is compiled from various sources, including UN agencies, non-governmental organisations, insurance companies, research institutes and press agencies.”

  • Neumayer and Plümper (2007) give an overview of natural disasters covered by EM-DAT.49
  • The EM-DAT data for the time post 1970 is also available through Gapminder here.

Devereux (2000) Famine in the 20th Century
  • Data: Famines with mortality above 1,000 deaths.
  • Geographical coverage: Global
  • Time span: 1900-2000
  • Available at: The research paper Devereux (2000) – Famine in the 20th century is published as a IDS Working Paper here.50

World Peace Foundation, Famine Trends Dataset
  • Data: Famines with mortality above 100,000 deaths and episodes of mass intentional starvation with killed more than 10,000
  • Geographical coverage: Global
  • Time span: 1870-present
  • Available at: the World Peace Foundation website here.

Ó Gráda (2009) Famine: A Short History
  • Data: Overview of the history of famines and of famine scholarship, with a selection of famine mortality estimates in Table 1.1.
  • Geographical coverage: Global
  • Time span: Table 1.1 includes selected famines since 1693
  • The book’s website is available here.


Other Sources

Additional sources used in assembling the table below are as follows:

Kumar and Raychaudhuri [Eds.] (1983) – The Cambridge economic history of India, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 1983

Ó Gráda (2007) – Making Famine History. Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. 45, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp. 5-38. Available online here.

Ó Gráda (2008) – “The ripple that drowns? Twentieth-century famines in china and India as economic history.” The Economic History Review 61:5-37.

Ó Gráda (2010) – Famines past, Famine’s future. UCD CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH WORKING PAPER SERIES, WP10/20

Coghlan, Benjamin, Pascal Ngoy, Flavien Mulumba. Colleen Hardy, Valerie Nkamgang Beno, Tony Stewart, Jennifer Lewis and Richard Brennan, 2007. Mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo: An ongoing crisis. New York, International Rescue Committee.

Davis (2001) – Late Victorian Holocausts; Verso Books, ISBN 978-1-85984-739-8

Maharatna (1992) The Demography of Indian Famines: A Historical Perspective; doctoral thesis, LSE. Available online here.

van der Eng (2012) – All Lies? Famines in Sukarno’s Indonesia, 1950s-1960s; Crawford School of Public Policy. Available online here.

Human Security Report Project. Human Security Report 2009/2010: The Causes of Peace and the Shrinking Costs of War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Iliffe (1987) – The African Poor: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III (1907), The Indian Empire, Economic (Chapter X: Famine, pp. 475–502, Published under the authority of His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxx, 1 map, 552. Through Wikipedia here.

Shoko Okazaki (1986) – The Great Persian Famine of 1870-71. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 49, No. 1, In Honour of Ann K. S. Lambton (1986), pp. 183-192

Crowell and Oozevaseuk (2006) – The St. Lawrence Island Famine and Epidemic, 1878–80: A Yupik Narrative in Cultural and Historical Context. Online here.

‘Wikipedia List’ refers to the List of Famines here.

The Our World in Data-Dataset of Famines

Year Country Excess Mortality midpoint Excess Mortality lower Excess Mortality upper Source
1846–52 Ireland 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Ó Gráda (2007)
1860-1 India 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Kumar and Raychaudhuri [Eds.] (1983)
1863-67 Cape Verde 30,000 30,000 30,000 Ó Gráda (2009), p. 22
1866-7 India 961,043 961,043 961,043 Kumar and Raychaudhuri [Eds.] (1983)
1868 Finland 100,000 100,000 100,000 Ó Gráda (2009) Table 1.1
1868-70 India 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III (1907),
1870–1871 Persia (now Iran) 1,000,000 500,000 1,500,000 Okazaki (1986)
1876–79 Brazil 750,000 500,000 1,000,000 WPF; Davis (2001)
1876–79 India 7,176,346 6,135,000 8,217,692 Maharatna (1992). See also Ó Gráda (2009) Table 1.1
1877–79 China 11,000,000 9,000,000 13,000,000 WPF; Ó Gráda (2009) Table 1.1
1878-1880 USA (St. Lawreence Island Alaska) 1,000 1,000 1,000 Crowell and Oozevaseuk (2006)
1885-99 Congo 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 WPF
1888-92 Sudan 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 WPF
1888-9 India 150,000 150,000 150,000 Kumar and Raychaudhuri [Eds.] (1983)
1888–1892 Ethiopia 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 WPF
1891–1892 Russia 275,000 275,000 275,000 WPF
1896-7 India 3,887,287 2,624,574 5,150,000 Kumar and Raychaudhuri [Eds.] (1983); Maharatna (1992)
1896-1900 Brazil 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 WPF
1897-1901 China 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 WPF
1899-1901 India 2,699,790 1,000,000 4,399,579 WPF; Maharatna (1992)
1899-1902 S Africa 42,000 42,000 42,000 WPF
1900-03 Cape Verde 15,500 11,000 20,000 EM-DAT; Ó Gráda (2009), p. 22
1903-06 Nigeria (Hausaland) 5,000 5,000 5,000 Devereux (2000)
1904-07 Namibia 55,017 34 110,000 WPF
1906-07 Tanzania (south) 118,750 37,500 200,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1907-08 India 2,683,782 2,148,788 3,218,776 Maharatna (1992)
1910 Niger 85,000 85,000 85,000 EM-DAT
1913-14 West Africa (Sahel) 125,000 125,000 125,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1915-18 Greater Syria (including Lebanon) 350,000 350,000 350,000 WPF
1915-16 Turkey (Armenians) 400,000 400,000 400,000 WPF
1917-18 Germany 763,000 763,000 763,000 WPF
1917-19 Persia (now Iran) 455,200 455,200 455,200 WPF
1917-19 East Africa 300,000 300,000 300,000 WPF; see also Devereux (2000).
1919 Armenia 200,000 200,000 200,000 WPF
1920-22 Cape Verde 24,500 24,000 25,000 EM-DAT; Ó Gráda (2009), p. 22
1920-21 China (Gansu, Shaanxi) 500,000 500,000 500,000 Devereux (2000)
1921-22 USSR 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 Devereux (2000); Ó Gráda (2009) Table 1.1
1927 China (northwest) 4,500,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 Devereux (2000); Ó Gráda (2009) Table 1.1
1929 China (Hunan) 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Devereux (2000); Ó Gráda (2008)
1930-31 Libya 50,000 50,000 50,000 WPF
1932-34 USSR (Ukraine) 5,650,000 3,300,000 8,000,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1932-34 USSR (Russia, Kazakhstan) 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 WPF
1934, 1936-7 China (Sichuan) 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 WPF; Ó Gráda (2008)
1940-43 Cape Verde 20,000 20,000 20,000 EM-DAT; Ó Gráda (2009), p. 22
1941-50 Europe/USSR (collection of WWII-related events) 6,333,000 6,333,000 6,333,000 WPF
1941-45 East/Southeast Asia (collection of WWII-related events) 5,444,000 5,444,000 5,444,000 WPF
1943 China (Henan) 3,250,000 1,500,000 5,000,000 Devereux (2000); WPF. See also Ó Gráda (2008)
1943 India (Bengal) 2,550,000 2,100,000 3,000,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1943-44 Rwanda 300,000 300,000 300,000 Devereux (2000)
1944 Netherlands 10,000 10,000 10,000 Devereux (2000)
1946-48 Cape Verde 30,000 30,000 30,000 EM-DAT; Ó Gráda (2009), p. 22
1946-47 USSR (Ukraine and Belorussia) 1,300,000 600,000 2,000,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1957-58 Ethiopia (Tigray) 248,500 100,000 397,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1959-61 China 24,000,000 15,000,000 33,000,000 Devereux (2000); Ó Gráda (2009) Table 1.1; WPF
1966 Ethiopia (Wallo) 52,500 45,000 60,000 Devereux (2000)
1962-68 Indonesia 67,700 - 135,400 van der Eng (2012)
1968-70 Nigeria (Biafra) 750,000 500,000 1,000,000 Devereux (2000); WPF; see Ó Gráda (2009) p.98
1969-74 West Africa (Sahel) 50,500 - 101,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1972-73 India (Maharashtra) 130,000 130,000 130,000 Devereux (2000)
1972-75 Ethiopia (Wallo & Tigray) 350,000 200,000 500,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1974-75 Somalia 20,000 20,000 20,000 Devereux (2000)
1974 Bangladesh 1,000,000 500,000 1,500,000 Devereux (2000); Ó Gráda (2009) p. 98
1979 Cambodia 1,605,000 1,210,000 2,000,000 Devereux (2000); WPF; see Ó Gráda (2009) p.98
1980 Chad 3,000 3,000 3,000 EM-DAT; see also Iliffe (1987) p.253
1980-81 Uganda 30,000 30,000 30,000 Devereux (2000)
1982-85 Mozambique 100,000 100,000 100,000 Devereux (2000)
1983-85 Ethiopia 795,000 590,000 1,000,000 Devereux (2000); see WPF and Ó Gráda (2009) p.98
1984-85 Sudan (Darfur, Kordofan) 245,000 240,000 250,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1988 Sudan (south) 175,000 100,000 250,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1991-93 Somalia 360,000 220,000 500,000 Devereux (2000), WPF
1995-99 North Korea 420,000 240,000 600,000 WPF; see Devereux (2000) and Ó Gráda (2009) p.94
1998 Sudan (Baht el Ghazal) 85,000 70,000 100,000 Devereux (2000); WPF
1998-2007 Democratic Republic of Congo  3,131,500 863,000 5,400,000 Coglan et al (2007); 2009/10 Human Security Report
2002 Malawi 1,650 300 3,000 Devereux (2002)
2003-05 Sudan (Darfur) 200,000 200,000 200,000 WPF
2003-06 Uganda 100,000 100,000 100,000 WPF
2011 Somalia 255,000 255,000 255,000 WPF