By Anthony Emeka Nwosu

 

Introduction

Godwin Aipoh is a PhD candidate in Economics at Georgia State University’s Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, where his research focuses on applied questions in health, labor, and public economics. His work examines how major policy changes—such as shifts in health insurance coverage, paid leave laws, and education expansion—affect people’s health, well-being, and economic outcomes, especially for vulnerable populations. In this interview, Aipoh discusses why evidence matters in policymaking, what happens when people lose public health insurance, and how credible research can inform better decisions.

Q: For readers meeting you for the first time, who are you, and what do you work on?

Aipoh:
I’m Godwin Aipoh, a PhD candidate in economics at Georgia State University. My research sits at the intersection of health, labor, and public economics. I use policy changes as natural experiments to understand how people’s health, well-being, and economic outcomes respond when policies shift. I’m especially interested in how these changes affect groups that are most exposed to policy shocks, such as low-income households or people who rely on public programs.

Q: What’s the big policy problem that motivates your research?

Aipoh:
In both the United States and many developing countries, policy debates often move faster than the evidence. People argue intensely about health coverage, paid leave, or tobacco regulations, but the fundamental question is simple: what actually happens to real people when these policies change? How does it affect their welfare, their health, and their economic stability? My goal is to produce evidence that policymakers and the public can trust when making those decisions.

Q: Your work includes the effects of losing public health insurance on mental health. Why focus on “losing,” not just gaining?

Aipoh:
A lot of research looks at what happens when people gain insurance, which is very important. But policy changes can also remove or reduce coverage, sometimes quite abruptly. Losing insurance can be a major shock. People may delay care, lose access to medications, and experience stress and uncertainty. I want to measure that shock carefully and be clear about what the data can and cannot tell us about its effects.

Q: In plain language, what do you want policymakers to take away from this research?

Aipoh:
If policymakers are going to change eligibility rules or benefits, the discussion shouldn’t be only about budgets. Design details matter. The pace of change matters. Communication matters. And the effects of these changes don’t just show up in hospitals or clinics—they also appear in people’s mental health and everyday functioning.

Q: You also study paid leave and infant health care use. What’s the intuition behind that?

Aipoh:
Paid leave is often framed as a labor market policy, but it’s also a health policy. When parents have time and income stability after a child is born, that can affect whether infants receive preventive care and follow-up care. My goal is to provide credible evidence on how paid leave policies shape early healthcare use and, potentially, infant health.

Q: Another project examines Nigeria’s 2011 federal university expansion and local labor markets. Why does that fit into your research agenda?

Aipoh:
It’s still about large policy choices that shape human capital and long-term opportunity. Expanding universities isn’t just an education policy—it can change local labor markets, influence migration decisions, and affect regional development. These kinds of policies have long-lasting economic consequences.

Q: You also have a paper on HIV prevalence in South Africa. What did you find?

Aipoh:
Using South Africa’s General Household Survey data from 2002 to 2016 and synthetic control methods, I estimate that KwaZulu-Natal’s 2010 HIV policy reduced HIV prevalence by about 1.6 to 1.7 percentage points. The strongest effects appeared in the first few years after the policy was implemented.

Q: How do you know that drop wasn’t just a coincidence or a pre-existing trend?

Aipoh:
The key is whether KwaZulu-Natal and its “synthetic” comparison group followed similar trends before 2010, and they did. I also ran placebo tests by moving the policy date earlier and assigning the treatment to other provinces, and the same pattern didn’t appear. I further verified the results using a Synthetic Difference-in-Differences estimator, which pointed in the same direction.

Q: How do you think about credibility in research, especially on politically sensitive topics?

Aipoh:
I try to design studies that would still make sense to a skeptical reader. That means being transparent about the data, the methods, and the assumptions. It also means doing robustness checks that are genuinely informative. If the evidence is mixed, I say so.

Q: You teach economics of poverty and public policy. Does teaching affect how you communicate research?

Aipoh:
Definitely. Teaching forces you to explain complex ideas without relying on jargon. It also keeps you grounded in the questions people care about: who benefits, who pays, and what does the evidence really show?

Q: You also serve as an editorial board member and reviewer. What does that role mean to you?

Aipoh:
Peer review helps maintain standards in the field. When I review papers, I look for a clear research question, transparent methods, and conclusions that match the evidence. I also try to give feedback that helps authors strengthen their work.

Q: What’s next for you?

Aipoh:
I want to continue building research that is policy-relevant, methodologically careful, and understandable both inside and outside academic circles. Whether it’s health insurance, paid leave, or education expansion, the goal is the same: use credible evidence to clarify debates that affect people’s lives.

Closing Line

Aipoh’s work speaks to a broader truth in health, public, and labor economics: policy is not just about government intentions, but about how households experience those decisions—and how those experiences shape real-world outcomes.

People argue intensely about health coverage, paid leave, or tobacco regulations, but the fundamental question is simple: what actually happens to real people when these policies change? How does it affect their welfare, their health, and their economic stability? My goal is to produce evidence that policymakers and the public can trust when making those decisions.