Researchers evaluated the effect of personalized options information on seniors' plan choices. They found that people who received personalized information were more likely to change plans, resulting in an average saving of US$100 per year. This suggests that direct information delivery can decrease the difficulty of comparative research, thereby helping consumers make more informed decisions about government services.

Researchers investigated whether a financial literacy program improved financial knowledge and practices, and increased financial service use among low-income individuals in South Africa. Offering a training improved knowledge about budgeting, increased self-reported savings, and reduced loan applications but the evaluation did not detect other significant improvements in financial knowledge or practices.

Researchers expanded microcredit offerings in Bosnia and Herzegovina to evaluate the effect of improved credit access on economic and social outcomes. They found that providing loans to slightly under-qualified microcredit applicants increased small business ownership, but not income, and decreased school participation among high school-aged youth who worked more in family businesses.

In the Dominican Republic, researchers are investigating whether financial education and business training can help recipients of CCTs to manage their own finances and ultimately graduate from the program.

Financial access in South Africa has expanded rapidly in recent years and policymakers have identified financial education as a means to improve financial literacy and inclusion. To test this, researchers evaluated the impact of a financial literacy workshop on miners’ financial understanding, behavior, and use of financial services.

In Mexico, researchers conducted a randomized evaluation to test the effect of providing plot-specific or general soil quality analyses and input recommendations, agricultural extension services, and flexible or inflexible in-kind grants on smallholder farmers’ adoption and knowledge of improved practices and fertilizer combinations, yields, profits, and attitudes toward innovation. In the short run, they did not find differences on farmers’ fertilizer adoption when comparing specific and general input recommendations, nor when comparing flexible and inflexible in-kind grants. However, farmers with greater grant spending flexibility had substantially higher adoption of improved practices two years after the intervention ended.

In Kenya, researchers assessed the impact of training farmers to verify seed quality on their seed purchasing decisions and productivity, and the responses of seed markets to these changes. Trained farmers became better able to detect seed quality, more selective about where they bought seeds, and experienced higher yields. Sellers, however, did not improve seed quality or adjust their prices in response to the shifts in farmer demand, possibly due to the high cost of doing so. Instead, many opted to exit the market.

Researchers are conducting a randomized evaluation to test whether providing traders “bonuses” for high-quality coffee affects the prices traders offer farmers for their coffee and whether this, in turn, affects farmers’ incentives to invest in the quality of their production.

In partnership with Bridges to Prosperity, the researchers are conducting a randomized evaluation across 23 districts in Rwanda to determine the impact of building footbridges on wages and agricultural technology adoption and production.

In western Uganda, researchers conducted a series of randomized evaluations that assessed the impact of introducing a combination of post-harvest services, training on agricultural best practices, and access to a market for high-quality maize on farmers’ productivity and profits. Researchers found that the extension services only intervention had little to no impacts on productivity and farmer profits.

Researchers in Kenya collaborated with the NGO International Child Support to measure the returns to different types of fertilizer among local farmers. While results show that all interventions led to increases in yield, rate-of-return calculations indicate that not all were profitable for the average farmer.