Skip to main content
Zhiqi Xu

Netherlands

Zhiqi Xu Member since 15/04/2025

Erasmus University Rotterdam

PhD Researcher in Development Studies | Behavioral Scientist
Website

I’m a behavioral scientist and evaluation professional with 4+ years of experience in development policy evaluation, rural transformation, and behavioral research. Trained in social psychology, economics, and development studies, I design field-based RCTs, surveys, and behavioral tools to uncover the motivations behind real-world decisions—especially in decentralized governance systems. My work with grassroots actors like village officials, farmers, and elders informs inclusive, adaptive, and evidence-based policies. Fluent in English and Chinese, I aim to contribute to learning and decision-making in international development through various evaluation roles.

In essence, I uncover the behavioral roots of change.

My contributions

    • Zhiqi Xu

      Netherlands

      Zhiqi Xu

      PhD Researcher in Development Studies | Behavioral Scientist

      Erasmus University Rotterdam

      Posted on 28/04/2025

      In my opinion, we risk missing the real impact if we overlook three elements in evaluating SSTC: the crucial role of grassroots actors, better ways to measure intangible outcomes, and smarter methods to address attribution

      I will share one case study on localization, and suggest two methodological approaches from interdisciplinary perspectives—behavioral science and econometrics—drawing from my field experience and research to illustrate my points.

      1. Local actors often make the difference
      In a UNDP-supported microfinance project I studied, village leaders sought to bring back lessons from Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank model. At first, it didn’t work — the idea of microfinance didn’t translate well, and bad debts piled up. But thanks to the persistence of grassroots organizations and local leaders, they adapted the model to fit their own reality. Over time, it grew into a strong, lasting farmers’ association.
      If evaluations only look at short-term results, they might label this as a failure and miss the bigger story. Without recognizing the role of local actors and the longer adaptation process, evaluations risk overlooking such "delayed" successes. We need to give more space to local feedback and recognize the slow, sometimes messy, but powerful process of localization.

      2. Measuring intangible outcomes through psychology & behavioral science
      Things like empowerment, ownership, and mutual learning are often seen as “too soft” to measure. But behavioral science and psychology have been studying these for decades. These disciplines offer a range of validated tools and frameworks that could strengthen evaluations in this area. However, adaptation is crucial: many existing measures are designed for WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) populations. Tailoring tools to fit local contexts would help ensure that evaluations meaningfully capture the behavioral and psychological dimensions of SSC initiatives.

      3. Tackling attribution complexity with stronger causal and people-centered analysis
      Attribution remains one of the toughest challenges in evaluating SSTC, especially when multiple initiatives overlap or interact. However, evaluations can move beyond simply acknowledging this difficulty. Applying causal inference methods—such as Propensity Score Matching (PSM), natural experiments, and carefully structured comparison groups—can provide clearer evidence of an initiative’s specific contribution. Even when all beneficiaries ultimately receive the program, differences in timing (e.g., earlier versus later adopters) can offer natural comparison opportunities and help evaluators trace causal pathways over time.

      Moreover, exploring non-traditional, people-centered statistical methods can further improve attribution analysis. For example, in analyzing data from my recent elderly care survey, I applied Latent Profile Analysis (LPA)—a technique that groups individuals into sub-profiles based on selected indicators such as psychological traits, willingness, and demographic characteristics. This revealed hidden diversity within the population and explained why treatment effects appeared inconsistent at the aggregate level. Applying such approaches in SSC evaluations can uncover latent differences among beneficiaries, helping evaluators better understand nuanced impacts across different sub-groups. Segmenting populations based on both timing and underlying profiles could produce more accurate and meaningful assessments of program effects.

      While these methods require additional effort in design and analysis, they offer critical pathways to make SSC evaluations more credible, context-sensitive, and actionable.

      In short: Recognizing the contributions of grassroots actors, adopting innovative measurement strategies for intangible outcomes, and applying more diverse causal analysis can make evaluations of SSTC initiatives more responsive, credible, and ultimately more impactful.

      I would welcome any thoughts or experiences from others on how you have strengthened evaluations to better reflect local adaptation processes and intangible results in SSTC programs.

      Thanks very much to Carlos Tarazona (FAO), Arwa Khalid (FAO), Javier Guarnizo (UNIDO), and Xin Xin Yang (UNICEF) for initiating this important disucssion! 

       

      Cheers,

      Zhiqi

    • Zhiqi Xu

      Netherlands

      Zhiqi Xu

      PhD Researcher in Development Studies | Behavioral Scientist

      Erasmus University Rotterdam

      Posted on 16/04/2025

      Dear Ram,

      I completely agree with your observations on the lack of local ownership and participation in top-down, large-scale projects. I believe the effectiveness of such initiatives largely depends on their nature. When a project is relief-oriented and aims for short-term outcomes, a top-down approach can be beneficial due to its efficiency, centralized resource pooling, and systematic coordination.

      However, for development-oriented goals, large-scale projects often suffer from a lack of community ownership and participation. This is primarily due to two reasons: first, the design of these projects frequently fails to account for nuanced local needs and contextual specificities; second, beneficiaries often lack agency and intrinsic motivation to engage meaningfully.

      Take microfinance programs for small farmers as an example. While they have proven successful in Bangladesh through models like Grameen Bank, large-scale implementation in China led to the collapse of hundreds of institutions and a surge in bad debt. One key reason is that the concept of microloans was not well embedded in the local mindset and cultural understanding. Many farmers perceived these loans as a form of aid, which resulted in low repayment rates.

      In summary, interventions that rely heavily on human agency must be behaviorally informed, context-sensitive, and ideally co-designed with local actors. Understanding community needs beforehand is crucial for meaningful impact.

      Regarding M&E systems, I find that they often fail to capture both the bottlenecks and the positive transformations occurring at the local level, especially when they rely solely on objective indicators. In-depth fieldwork—whether qualitative or mixed-method—is essential to explore the behavioral and psychological factors that drive or hinder change.

      Looking forward to your thoughts!

      Cheers,

      Zhiqi