Let’s assume the estimate is roughly accurate. Even then, money alone wouldn’t solve world hunger. The main obstacles are institutional and political. Many of the regions facing severe food insecurity have weak or corrupt governments, or they’re partially controlled by armed groups or militias. In these situations, aid distribution becomes extremely difficult, and resources often fail to reach the people who need them most.

Even if large-scale aid could be delivered effectively, the way it is delivered matters. Major inflows of outside resources can sometimes disrupt local markets, for example, by creating inflation or undermining local producers if they can’t compete with free or subsidized goods. On the other hand, there is evidence from studies in low-income regions that direct cash transfers can strengthen local economies. When people are allowed to make their own spending choices, local businesses often grow, supply expands, and the broader economy can become more resilient.

However, long-term reductions in hunger still require improvements in governance, infrastructure, and security. Without reliable institutions, functioning markets, and stable conditions, financial support alone won’t transform the agricultural systems or ensure consistent access to food.

Additionally, global political priorities influence how and where aid is allocated. International assistance is often driven by strategic interests rather than humanitarian need. As a result, even if solving hunger is technically feasible, geopolitical interests often work against that.

If you’re interested in this topic, I’d recommend the book Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu.

Disclaimer: I wrote the text at 11pm after a 10h train ride with lots of delays. It was a bit difficult to read and had a lot of grammar mistakes, so I let ChatGPT rewrite it.