7th January 2026: Economics, when grounded in lived realities and rigorous evidence, can illuminate why well-intentioned policies sometimes fall short—and how they can be redesigned to work better. This is the guiding principle behind the work of Dr. Aisha Dr.Nanyiti, a development economist whose research combines experimental methods with deep knowledge of local contexts in Uganda and similar settings.
Speaking in a recent interview with the International Economic Association (IEA), Dr.Nanyiti traced her journey into economics to a pivotal moment while developing her PhD proposal. At the time, microfinance was widely celebrated as a solution to poverty, yet mounting evidence showed that it also left some borrowers worse off through over-indebtedness. This contradiction sparked her central research question: what can poor households themselves do to improve their welfare, given real constraints on autonomy and resources?
That question led her to study collective action, particularly savings institutions, and to adopt framed field experiments—an approach that allows researchers to simulate real-world decision-making while producing causal and generalisable evidence. “The quest for answers was still on,” she notes, describing how experimental methods became a practical tool for understanding behaviour under realistic conditions.
One of Dr.Dr.Nanyiti’s notable studies examines insurance arrangements among Ugandan farmers. Her findings reveal a striking asymmetry: informal insurance networks generate moral hazard, while formal insurance does not. In informal settings, farmers may reduce effort because they anticipate having to share good outcomes with peers who experience losses. This dynamic not only limits coverage but can also encourage practices such as income hiding, with broader productivity losses across communities. Formal insurance, she argues, can avoid these pitfalls if accompanied by effective awareness programmes that help farmers understand risks and benefits, for instance through simulations or peer testimonials.
Dr.Nanyiti has also made important contributions to understanding women’s empowerment. Using incentive-compatible framed field experiments with real household items, she measured women’s bargaining power within households—moving beyond self-reported survey responses, which are often distorted by social desirability or recall bias. Her research shows that rural electrification significantly enhances women’s empowerment. Beyond enabling income-generating activities, access to electricity expands information flows through media, reshaping attitudes and perceptions about women’s roles and decision-making power.
Another strand of her work challenges assumptions about labour market interventions. Dr.Nanyiti finds that tied labour contracts and savings products—both intended to help agricultural workers smooth consumption—can actually reduce wages and overall income. While these arrangements offer insurance against income volatility, workers effectively pay a risk premium through lower wages. In labour markets characterised by high unemployment and strong employer bargaining power, such institutional innovations fail to generate compensating benefits for workers.
Throughout the interview, Dr.Nanyiti emphasises how her personal background informs her research perspective. Familiarity with local livelihoods, incentives, and coping mechanisms has drawn her to micro-econometric development research that speaks directly to policy challenges in low-income settings.
Looking ahead, she calls for a more inclusive economics profession. Key steps include building research capacity through high-quality PhD training supported by scholarships, particularly “sandwich” programmes that allow doctoral candidates—especially women—to split their training between home institutions and overseas universities. She also urges research and academic institutions to foster collaboration and adopt more inclusive timelines and practices for meetings and research activities.
Taken together, Dr.Nanyiti’s work underscores a central message: policies designed to reduce poverty and inequality must be tested against real behaviour and real constraints. Only then can economics deliver solutions that are not just well-intended, but genuinely effective.