"What gets measured gets managed" is a familiar saying in development. But when it comes to gender equality, it’s worth asking whether we’re measuring what matters. Counting the number of women who have access to financial services is important, but it only tells part of the story. To design policies and financial systems that work for women, we also need to understand their lived experiences, the barriers they face and the results they achieve. Better gender data helps us move beyond counting women to understanding what enables meaningful economic participation.

Across Africa, governments, regulators, financial institutions and development organisations are placing greater emphasis on gender-responsive programming. More and more, donors require evidence of how investments contribute to women's economic empowerment, while policymakers seek data that helps inform more inclusive financial systems. In response, organisations are collecting more gender data than ever. Too often, however, this begins and ends with reporting the number of women who participated in a programme, opened a bank account, received a loan or attended training. While also important, these figures tell us very little about whether women's lives have changed.

Did having a bank account increase a woman's control over her finances? Did digital payments improve her financial independence, or simply change how money was received? Does access to financial services translate into greater agency, confidence or decision-making power? These are the questions that matter. And they cannot be answered by participation numbers alone.

Looking Past the Numbers

Sex-disaggregated data – the practice of reporting data separately for women and men – is a key starting point. It helps identify participation gaps, monitor inclusion and reveal disparities between different population groups. However, as  FinMark Trust's Gender Disaggregated Data (GDD) Summary Guidelines highlight, knowing who participated is only the beginning. To understand whether financial systems are working for women, we also need to understand why disparities exist and how gender shapes people's financial experiences. An intersectional lens helps identify which groups of women face the greatest barriers, supporting more targeted and impactful interventions. This is where GDD becomes critical.

Rather than focusing only on outputs, GDD explores the social, economic and behavioural factors that influence women's financial lives. It helps explain both whether women are participating and whether they are able to benefit meaningfully from financial services. Ultimately, the goal is women's economic empowerment: the ability of women to make and act on economic decisions, control resources, access opportunities and benefit from economic participation.

The journey can be viewed as three building blocks:

• Sex-disaggregated data tells us who is participating.
• Gender data and diagnostics explain why differences exist.
• Women's economic empowerment indicators help us understand whether those differences are changing over time.

Together, these create a far richer evidence base for designing policies, products and programmes that genuinely respond to women's realities.

Measuring What Matters

Economic empowerment extends far beyond access to financial services. It takes into account whether women have the opportunity, capability and freedom to make economic decisions that improve their lives. To understand this, researchers increasingly collect indicators that explore questions such as:

• Who makes financial decisions within the household?
• Who controls income and savings?
• Can women use financial services independently?
• How safe do women feel using digital financial services?
• Do unpaid care responsibilities limit economic participation?
• How do social norms influence financial behaviour?
• Do women trust formal financial institutions?
• Does financial access translate into meaningful use and greater financial resilience?

These questions move beyond measuring participation to understanding lived experience. They also happen to be some of the most difficult questions to ask.

Why Collecting Gender Data Is More Complex Than It Appears

Capturing gender dynamics requires looking beyond conventional metrics. Many gender indicators relate to relationships, power dynamics and deeply personal experiences. These realities cannot always be captured through straightforward survey questions.

Household Decision-making is Rarely Black and White

A question such as "Who makes financial decisions in your household?" appears simple. In practice, however, decision-making is often shared, negotiated or varies depending on the type of expense.

One household member may decide on everyday spending while another makes decisions about savings, school fees or investments. In some households, consultation reflects partnership; in others, it may reflect unequal power dynamics. Capturing these nuances calls for careful questionnaire design and thoughtful interpretation.

Agency Cannot Be Observed Directly

Agency refers to a person's ability to make choices and act upon them. Unlike demographic characteristics such as age or income, agency cannot be measured directly. Researchers rely on proxy questions to understand whether women feel able to make financial decisions, control resources, access services independently or pursue economic opportunities. Yet the answers may not always reflect reality.

A woman may say she is free to open a bank account because, technically, she can. At the same time, social expectations or household dynamics may discourage her from doing so without consulting someone else.

The difference between formal rights and lived experience is precisely why agency is difficult to measure.

Financial Access Does Not Always Mean Financial Control

Financial inclusion is often measured by whether people own or use a financial account. But ownership and control are not the same thing.

A woman may receive her wages or social grant into an account in her own name, while another household member determines how the money is spent. Similarly, a digital payment solution may make it easier to receive or send money without necessarily increasing a woman’s ability to make independent financial decisions.

A real-world example from a FinScope study illustrates this distinction. Looking at access to financial services alone could suggest progress in women’s financial inclusion. However, a GDD analysis asked a different question: who makes decisions about major household expenses such as land, rent and school fees?

The findings revealed a significant difference between men and women. While 71.2% of men said they made these decisions themselves, only 32.9% of women said the same. Nearly one-third of women (31.1%) reported that their spouse was the primary decision-maker, compared with just 2.4% of men.

This shows why account ownership or access alone cannot tell the whole story. Women may be participating in the financial system, yet still have little control over how household resources are used and fewer opportunities to exercise independent financial choice.

Without asking questions about decision-making and control, researchers risk overestimating how much financial inclusion translates into economic empowerment. A GDD approach therefore complements access indicators by examining agency, bargaining power and financial decision-making, which can help reveal whether access is actually expanding women’s economic choices.

Respondents Do Not Always Tell Us What They Experience

Many gender indicators touch on sensitive topics. Questions about financial control, household relationships, or decision-making may make respondents uncomfortable, particularly if interviews are conducted in the presence of family members.

In other cases, respondents may provide answers they believe are socially acceptable rather than describing their lived experiences - a phenomenon identified as social desirability bias. For example, respondents may report that financial decisions are made jointly because this reflects an ideal of equality, even if decision-making within the household is unequal in practice.

Context Guides Every Answer

Gender norms are deeply influenced by culture, language, religion, geography and community expectations. A question that performs well in one setting may be interpreted differently elsewhere.

Even concepts such as empowerment, independence or autonomy do not always translate neatly across languages or social contexts. This makes questionnaire testing, localisation and careful interpretation essential parts of high-quality gender research.

The Challenge of Measuring Women's Economic Empowerment

Frameworks such as the Women's Economic Empowerment and Financial Inclusion (WEE-FI) indicators encourage organisations to move beyond measuring access towards understanding lasting change. These frameworks include indicators relating to agency, financial control, leadership, confidence, resilience, decision-making and economic participation.

While incredibly valuable, they are also challenging to implement. Empowerment is not a single event. It evolves over time. Changes in confidence, bargaining power or financial independence often occur gradually and are influenced by many factors beyond a single programme or intervention.

As a result, organisations commonly face practical questions such as:

• How do we measure confidence consistently?
• How long does it take for agency to change?
• Which indicators are appropriate in different cultural settings?
• How can we distinguish programme impact from wider economic change?
• How many sensitive questions can reasonably be included before respondents experience survey fatigue?

There are rarely simple answers.

What Good Practice Looks Like

Collecting better gender data is not about asking more questions. It is about asking better questions, creating safe environments for respondents and interpreting findings within context. Drawing on FinMark Trust's GDD guidelines, several principles can strengthen gender-responsive data collection.

• Start with sex-disaggregated data, but don’t stop there: Knowing who participated and understanding why disparities exist requires collecting data on agency, financial behaviours, social norms and decision-making.
• Use mixed methods: Quantitative studies tell us what is happening, whereas qualitative interviews and focus groups help explain why it is happening. Combining both provides a more complete picture of women's lived experiences.
• Train enumerators in gender-sensitive interviewing: Collecting gender data requires more than technical survey skills. Enumerators need to understand how to ask sensitive questions respectfully, protect confidentiality and recognise when respondents may not feel safe to answer honestly.
• Pilot and adapt questionnaires: Gender concepts are interpreted differently across communities. Testing questions before fieldwork helps identify confusing language, cultural differences and unintended bias.
• Recognise intersectionality. Women's experiences are not uniform. Age, disability, migration status, education, income, geography and employment all affect financial inclusion. Collecting intersectional data helps identify which groups of women face the greatest barriers and ensures that programmes respond appropriately.
• Use evidence to inform action. Gender data should not exist simply to satisfy reporting requirements. Its greatest value lies in informing policy, improving product design and shaping programmes that better respond to women's realities.

Measuring What Really Matters

As financial systems become progressively digital and data-centric, the demand for gender evidence will continue to grow. This presents an important opportunity to collect more gender data, and better gender data.

For governments, regulators, financial service providers and development partners, the challenge is no longer whether gender data should be collected. The challenge involves ensuring that the right data are collected and translated into decisions that improve women's economic outcomes.

If we only count women, we measure participation. If we collect gender data and diagnostics, we begin to understand the barriers and opportunities shaping women's financial lives. And if we measure women's economic empowerment, we move closer to understanding whether financial systems are expanding women's choices, strengthening their agency and empowering them to participate fully in the economy.

At FinMark Trust, we believe that evidence should test assumptions, reveal hidden barriers and inform practical solutions that create more inclusive financial systems. Therefore, more than measurement, better gender data is about making sure financial inclusion translates into meaningful economic empowerment for all women.