As part of our interview series, we ask renowned experts in the field about the future of research in development economics, and for their advice for young researchers. For this interview, we got the opportunity to talk to Prof. Emma Riley.
Emma Riley examines how digital financial services can transform women’s economic lives in sub-Saharan Africa. Through rigorous field experiments, she explores critical questions about enhancing women’s micro-enterprise success, effective poverty reduction strategies, and the empowering influence of role models on women in developing economies.
ETRM: What inspired you to do research in development economics?
Riley: I first took development economics during my undergraduate economics degree in the UK. From the beginning, I really enjoyed it because it seemed more connected to people’s lives and welfare—more practical and impactful than the theoretical courses I was taking at the time. I took this development economics course around 2009, which was a fascinating time because many of the early Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were just emerging. I remember studying papers like the Duflo, Kremer, and Robinson study on nudging farmers to use fertilizer, which was released as a working paper then. I was fascinated that economist conducted these field experiments—it was unlike any other economics I’d encountered- and this approach really appealed to me. I loved learning about field experiments and became interested in conducting my own research. For my dissertation (similar to an honors thesis), I studied the effect of microfinance on women’s empowerment—a topic I still study today.
After graduation, I volunteered at a microfinance organization in India for three months. I was fascinated by trying to understand who became a successful entrepreneur, and whether success could be taught to others. To this end, I recorded videos of successful female entrepreneurs to show to new microfinance clients when they first took out loans with the aim of expanding their horizons regarding what they could achieve as entrepreneurs. Interestingly, these role model-type videos have become a feature of my subsequent work and I’ve continued to partner with microfinance organizations. I also knew I wanted to use field experiments in my subsequent research because they had shaped my initial interests in such a meaningful way.
ETRM: Our second question relates to your research, which covers a wide range of topics including digital financial services, poverty programs, and women’s empowerment. What do you see as the most exciting frontier or emerging challenges in this field of research?I
Riley: I think many organizations I work with have recently started collecting their own data digitally or digitizing data they previously collected in analog form. Whether that’s microfinance providers who collected substantial data on paper and are now digitizing it, or the partner I worked with on an anti-poverty program that’s collecting detailed digital data on program participation and compliance.
There’s growing potential to utilize this partner-collected data for pilot projects or A/B testing type research, either before conducting an RCT or as part of one. This data can be highly valuable if leveraged effectively. For example, you could implement an intervention and check if it produces a detectable first-stage effect using data your partner is already collecting. If the initial results are promising, you can then follow up with survey data collection.
This approach could make RCTs nimbler and more cost-effective, allowing us to fail faster at lower cost. RCTs have become extremely expensive, with much of that expense coming from collecting extensive survey data. By integrating partner-collected data into piloting or pre-testing phases, we could conduct quicker investigations without the need for separate survey data collection.
ETRM: You completed your PhD and moved to the US to pursue a career, becoming an assistant professor. What advice would you give to PhD students and aspiring economists interested in development work?
Riley: My advice would be to gain hands-on experience working on someone else’s project first. If you’re interested in conducting field work and RCTs like I do, practical experience is essential. There’s so much learning-by-doing with RCTs. I always say with RCTs: everything that can go wrong will go wrong. The project I presented today (titled “We’re All in This Together”: Addressing Poverty in Village Economies) was affected by the COVID pandemic and an Ebola outbreak, but even small things can derail your work. The challenges are inevitable, but what matters is how you respond to setbacks and adapt your project.
Without prior field experience, you might view these failures as personal shortcomings or indications the idea was bad, rather than learning how to react and keep the project on track. That’s why I encourage aspiring economists to work as research assistants on established projects. Being in the field not only builds practical skills but also sparks research ideas. Many of my better research questions emerged from observations and puzzles I encountered while working in the field.
ETRM: We came across your new project titled ‘Building the Evidence Base for Women’s Digital Economic Empowerment,’ which is currently in its pilot phase, and we were very intrigued by it. Could you share what inspired this research and what key questions you’re hoping to answer through this study?
Riley: I joined this project after some of the initial groundwork had been established, so I wasn’t involved in its conception. While I can’t speak to the original inspiration, I can share what excites me about it and why I joined. The project collaborates with an organization providing smartphones through an innovative loan model. These loans are self-collateralized by the smartphones themselves—users make daily payments, and if they fall behind, the smartphone automatically locks until payments resume.
What particularly interests me is addressing the gender gap in smartphone ownership that exists worldwide, but is particularly large in Sub-Saharan Africa, where we’re working. We’re exploring how smartphones could serve as a gateway to digital financial inclusion and economic empowerment for women.
ETRM: You have worked extensively in African countries – how do you view mobile money platforms like M-PESA reshaping financial access for women? With M-PESA facilitating easier transactions and small-scale borrowing, do you believe this technology is fundamentally changing the borrowing landscape for women across Kenya and the broader African context?
Riley: The evidence regarding digital credit’s effects is rather mixed, with studies finding modest positive impacts at best. However, I haven’t observed significant ripple effects on either the microfinance industry or the broader formal financial sector. My impression is that the formal financial sector has been relatively slow to incorporate new data sources into their credit assessment models. I’m not aware of any major banks using mobile money transaction records in their credit scoring algorithms, for instance. Even microfinance organizations don’t appear to be fully leveraging this data. Currently, the ecosystem seems quite compartmentalized – mobile financial service providers collect this data and offer their own lending products, but there’s limited evidence that other financial institutions have access to or are utilizing this information for their underwriting decisions, although this might change in the future.
ETRM: How do you envision the evolution of digital financial services in developing countries over the next few decades?
Riley: I think one of the key questions regarding platforms like M-PESA concerns their fee structure. While M-PESA could potentially function like debit cards do in the US, the fees and their magnitude create significant barriers to wider use for payments. I wonder to what extent digital financial services might substitute for formal banking versus potentially becoming obstacles that slow down the transition to conventional banking and digital payment services and ultimately leave users worse off. The critical question is whether these fees will decrease enough to allow these services to become viable alternatives to traditional banking, or if they’ll remain as intermediate solutions with inherent limitations.
ETRM: In your experience conducting field experiments in developing countries, what are some of the most significant methodological challenges you’ve encountered, and how have you adapted your research approach to address them?
Riley: In my RCTs, I place strong emphasis on maintaining compliance with treatment assignment. I begin with the assumption that my NGO partners might unintentionally deliver treatment to the control group, and I proactively take steps to prevent this. When possible, I obtain implementation data to monitor intervention delivery in real-time. On one project, weekly implementation reports allowed me to quickly detect and stop the inadvertent treatment of a control group. When real-time monitoring isn’t feasible, I invest heavily in ensuring that partner staff thoroughly understand the treatment protocols. While senior leadership typically grasps the principles of randomization, this understanding must filter down through multiple management layers to reach frontline implementers – many of whom have only limited familiarity with RCTs. It’s common for field staff to intuitively replace unavailable treatment units with control units, so I work to preempt this by restricting their discretion in program delivery. I essentially try to ‘tie their hands’ by clearly defining which specific individuals or villages can receive the program. This approach, driven by a healthy concern about control group contamination, has significantly strengthened the integrity of my studies. In my experience, such contamination is a common challenge in field experiments.
ETRM: Thank you so much for joining our interview today!
