Interview with Francesca Papa
- Merle van den Akker
- Jul 20
- 7 min read
Behavioural Science is a rapidly expanding field and everyday new research is being developed in academia, tested and implemented by practitioners in financial organisations, development agencies, government ‘nudge’ units and more. This interview is part of a series interviewing prominent people in the field. And in today's interview the answers are provided by Francesca Papa.
Francesca is a Policy Analyst at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, where she applies behavioural science and systems thinking to shape strategic EU policies, including upcoming legislation on harmonised waste sorting labels across Member States.
Previously, she held several roles at the OECD Economics Department and the OECD Observatory for Public Sector Innovation (Behavioural Science Team). While at the OECD, she contributed to high-level policy reforms in areas such as economic development, productivity, anti-corruption, housing, and policy evaluation —providing technical advice to governments across Europe and Latin America. Francesca holds a Master’s degree in Behavioural and Decision Sciences from the University of Pennsylvania, and a Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics completed between LUISS, Stanford University, and Sciences Po Paris. She is the co-author of numerous policy and academic publications, with work featured in Nature, Routledge, OECD and EU policy reports as well as UN publications.
The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.
Who or what got you into behavioural science?
What first drew me to behavioural science was how counter-intuitive it is. When I started learning about behavioural economics at uni, I was constantly amazed by what I was learning. How it contradicted my intuitions, how it contradicted a lot of what microeconomics would traditionally tell us.
My study of behavioural science started specifically from the point of view of neuroeconomics, looking at what neurosciences can tell us about economic choices. The more I studied how the brain works and how it shapes our decisions, the more I wanted to learn. It’s a field that constantly surprises you, because it shows that people often don’t behave the way you’d expect. So that's what hooked me initially and a little bit what keeps me hooked now.
My degree was in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the time and the behavioural economics courses I took as part of my studies really solidified my interest in the field. From there, I decided to specialise further, with a master's specifically on behavioural science at the University of Pennsylvania. At the time, Penn was one of the only universities offering a program specifically on behavioural science, and I was lucky to be part of the very first cohort of their Master’s in Behavioural and Decision Sciences. Being part of that founding group was a great experience.
What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist? And what would you still like to achieve?
There are a few publications that I'm particularly happy to have been part of. One is certainly the OECD Basic Toolkit, a manual for behavioural insights that's targeted to policymakers. Another one is a Multinational Replication of Prospect Theory. That one felt particularly meaningful because at a time in which behavioural science is struggling with the replication crisis, being able to show that prospect theory — one of the foundational theories in the field — replicates across 19 countries, 13 languages and 4,000 participants—was very powerful.
But beyond that, more than any specific project or scientific paper, I'm proud of the broader missions I've been contributing to. During my six years at the OECD and now at the European Commission, I’ve had the opportunity to work on projects that genuinely improve public policy and as part of teams that are at the forefront of behavioural public policy. The work I’ve been doing feels very meaningful because it’s always driven by a mission for good. Whether it was sustainability projects, public health, productivity, or anticorruption, I always felt that I was bringing the behavioural science angle to contribute to large-scale goals I believe in.
Looking forward, as part of my new role at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, I’m really excited to contribute to the unique world of EU policymaking, which is something new to me. One project that I’m very excited about is working with my team to design a new EU system for waste sorting labels. At the moment, each EU country has a bit of a different approach to waste sorting, and we’re trying to create a unified approach. This will be part of the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. It’s just really exciting to be part of this EU-wide process, and I’m looking forward to doing more of this.
How do you think behavioural science will develop (in the next 10 years)?
One comment we often hear in the field is that, in the future, “we have to go beyond nudges”. I think that’s a likely direction for behavioural science, and to some extent, it’s already underway. Recently, my team at the JRC published a new position paper advocating that behavioural science must adopt a more systemic view. We have to aspire to that, and we also have the potential to achieve that.
We’ll be seeing more systemic applications of behavioural science going forward. And we will also develop new methodologies to do that correctly. Right now, we don’t really have one unique framework for how to study a system through a behavioural science lens. There are developments, starting from behavioural systems mapping, but we lack a single, structured methodology for applying behavioural science to systems. That’s missing, and I think we need that to fully realise our field’s potential.
What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science, right now?
One challenge that I’m concerned about is a sense of stagnation of the field. I feel like in some countries, the field has grown immensely, and in some other countries, less so. Even though pioneering countries have provided evidence that behavioural science is robust and useful, we are not really able to mainstream it fully. In some countries, it’s barely picked up at all. There is this feeling of awareness but reluctance to apply it. We need more evidence, more advocacy, to prove the potential that behavioural science has.
Then there’s another challenge for the countries where behavioural science is already strong. The biggest one there is governmental change. If a government shifts priorities, behavioural science teams can lose funding or influence very quickly. Just because behavioural science is established doesn’t mean it will stay that way forever.
And finally, there’s the problem of banalisation. We sometimes simplify our findings too much to make them accessible, which leads to oversimplification. That can limit how seriously behavioural science is taken. It is a field with immense potential, but only if we treat it with the complexity it deserves.
With all your experience, what skills would you say are needed to be a behavioural scientist? Are there any recommendations you would make?
A crucial skill is science communication—being able to clearly convey your findings while maintaining accuracy. Different audiences require different levels of explanation, and policymakers, business stakeholders, and academics each need tailored insights. Being able to explain a 3% treatment effect in a way that remains precise but accessible is vital. Always keeping in mind the "so what?"—the actionable insight.
What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?
My advice to young behavioural scientists would be to stay deeply curious and committed to continuous learning, as the field is constantly evolving. I do recommend specialised graduate programs in Behavioural and Decision Sciences – the one at UPenn was a great one for me for its flexibility in shaping education around personal interests. Formal education provides a strong foundation in experimentation, data analysis, and behavioural theory, but exposure to experienced behavioural scientists is equally valuable.
Learning from mentors, collaborating with experts, and engaging in discussions can also be a great source of growth and spark new ideas. For those transitioning mid-career, executive master’s programs like LSE’s are excellent options.
If formal education isn't an option, continuous learning through self-study and practical application is still effective. Staying curious and open to different applications of behavioural science will help you grow in the field.
What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?
The biggest one is banalisation. When people think behavioural science is just about nudges. Or when behavioural scientists themselves oversimplify the field to make it more appealing. That limits our credibility.
It reduces the complexity of human behaviour to simple tricks, which can lead to unrealistic expectations about what behavioural science can achieve. The overuse of buzzwords and oversimplified interventions makes it harder for serious practitioners to convey the depth and rigour of their work.
If you weren’t a behavioural scientist, what would you be doing?
Well, as a behavioural scientist, I know all too well that there’s no real counterfactual here! 😊 But I like to think I’d still be working for international organisations, perhaps through a different lens. In a way, that’s already been the case. At OECD, I worked in the Economics Department for many years, advising governments on structural reforms, mostly with the lens of traditional economics – on topics such as firm productivity, financing mechanisms for housing affordability, quantification methodologies to evaluate economic policies. So in another life, maybe I’d still be doing something similar, focusing more on economics and international development than behavioural science.
Do you apply behavioural science in your personal life?
I do! One of my best friends – Sakshi Ghai, who you also interviewed! – is also a behavioural scientist, and every month we set goals for each ourselves and keep each other accountable. We’re each other’s commitment device. It’s something we picked up from sitting together in Kathy Milkman’s behavioural science class at Wharton and that I still find super useful.
Which other behavioural scientist would you love to read an interview by?
I’ve had many mentors and managers who inspired me. If you’re looking for an interesting academic view, a conversation with Cristina Bicchieri is a must. I’m sure it would be fascinating to read her thoughts on where behavioural science—and specifically social norms research—is headed next.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Francesca!
As I said before, this interview is part of a larger series which can also be found here on the blog. Make sure you don't miss any of those, nor any of the upcoming interviews!
Keep your eye on Money on the Mind!
