Scaling up a simple planning intervention to help farmers save more of their harvest in Malawi

Farmers in low- and middle-income countries often face a period of scarcity before their next harvest, a time known as the “hungry season.” Farming households face negative consequences, with decreased well-being, child development, and economic outcomes, especially as they turn to coping mechanisms to make it to the next harvest.

With support from CEGA’s Psychology and Economics of Poverty Initiative, researchers tested whether a simple planning exercise, conducted at harvest time, could help smallholder farmers in Zambia save more and buffer against hunger later in the year. The exercise, informed by insights from psychology, uses a visual planning board to prompt farmers to think through all income and expenses for the year, using associative categories. Households were also provided with labels to correspond to spending categories, which they could physically attach to their stores of maize as a reminder of their plan.

Households that participated in the exercise spent less right after the harvest and had 15% higher savings two months later, compared to households that did not do the exercise. Participating households entered the hungry season, typically a time of scarcity, with an additional month’s worth of food. Households that used the planning tool also invested more in their own farms and had 9% higher farm revenue at harvest—entering the next agricultural cycle with more income than those that did not use the planning tool.

Strongly positive results from Zambia have garnered additional interest in how this simple planning exercise could help farmers elsewhere. With support from USAID’s Development Innovation Ventures, the Weiss Asset Management Foundation, and J-PAL’s Social Protection Initiative, the research team, led by CEGA affiliated faculty Supreet Kaur and Kelsey Jack, is partnering with One Acre Fund (1AF) to adapt and evaluate the planning exercise for Malawi at scale. This new randomized evaluation will provide crucial insight on the short- and long-term impacts, as implemented in a different context and at a larger scale, on household savings, consumption, and expenditures. If the results demonstrate positive impacts, 1AF may incorporate the approach into its programs across Africa, which currently serve around four million households.