Does Food Insecurity Hinder Migration? Experimental Evidence from the Indian Public Distribution System

Last registered on June 28, 2023


Trial Information

General Information

Does Food Insecurity Hinder Migration? Experimental Evidence from the Indian Public Distribution System
Initial registration date
October 17, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
October 19, 2021, 1:17 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
June 28, 2023, 10:11 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.



Primary Investigator

University of Rochester

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
The World Bank
PI Affiliation
The World Bank
PI Affiliation
The World Bank

Additional Trial Information

On going
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
People may avoid migrating if they cannot insure themselves against the risk of a bad outcome. Governments can reduce the consumption risk faced by migrants by allowing them to access social protection programs in the destination. We randomly informed around 62,000 households across 18 Indian states about a new program allowing migrants to collect their food ration across the country, together with information about practical barriers to using the program. Four months later, treated households held lower beliefs about food ration portability, and were less likely to migrate to cities. Our findings indicate that food insecurity risk reduces urban migration.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Baseler, Travis et al. 2023. "Does Food Insecurity Hinder Migration? Experimental Evidence from the Indian Public Distribution System." AEA RCT Registry. June 28.
Experimental Details


Households in our treatment group were read a script during the baseline survey. The script included basic information about the ONORC scheme, including that their ration allowance is portable across district and state lines; information on which states had joined the ONORC program by the time of the survey; information on the documents required to claim ration outside of their designated PDS shop; several caveats about practical barriers to using ONORC; and information on government offices responsible for resolving ration access issues and the phone number of a government helpline dedicated to ration portability. The script was read by an enumerator, and an information sheet was left with the respondent. In cases where respondents had clarifying or follow-up questions, enumerators were instructed to answer them if possible or to direct the respondent to our information hotline if not. All respondents were provided access to an information hotline which they could call to obtain local information (phone numbers and/or addresses) on ration shops across 29 states. We processed and uploaded individual ration shop information to Mapbox and Google Earth so that hotline staff could search for ration shops within or near the caller’s locality of interest. The hotline was staffed by research assistants, who could also answer basic questions about ration portability. Hotline access lasted for 5 months after the beginning of the intervention (from October 2021 to March 2022). Households in the control group did not receive the script, sheet, or hotline access.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Total emigration
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
We will measure total emigration as the number of individuals who are either baseline or new emigrants. We will also report a dummy measure equal to 1 if any family member is a baseline or new emigrant.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Knowledge of ration portability, planned new emigration, new emigration, urban emigration, inter-state and inter-district emigration, family earned income, family total consumption, occupational upgrading, subjective financial well-being, food security, ration claiming, job search efforts, remittances, index of economic well-being, emigration within high migration propensity households.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
See attached pre-analysis plan.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We will conduct our intervention with a subset of the survey sample covered by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), which has collected panel data on a nationally representative sample of approximately 170,000 households since 2014. We will add a module on PDS portability to CMIE's questionnaire for a random subset of their sample. This will enable us to conduct an information intervention and utilize the rich panel data that CMIE regularly collects on employment, migration, and welfare, at minimal cost and at a large scale.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Treatment status was assigned at the cluster level using a stratified permutation method. Strata were formed from the following features: state identifier, an urban dummy, a dummy for clusters with an above-median share of households that had sent an emigrant anywhere since 2017, and a dummy for clusters with an above-median poverty rate (defined as being below the 40th percentile of per-adult-equivalent household consumption). The Stata command randtreat was used, assigning misfits using the global method.
Randomization Unit
Clusters of CMIE's primary sampling units. A PSU roughly corresponds to a village in rural areas, and a town/city in urban areas.
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Approximately 1,740 clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
Approximately 62,130 households
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Treatment: 892 clusters, 30,674 households
Control: 848 clusters, 31,456 households
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
At 90% power and 1% significance, our minimum detectable effect for the increase in the share of households with a migrant is about 1 percentage point off a base of 45% (std dev = 0.498). That is, we are powered to detect a change from 45% to 46% or higher. Our minimum detectable effect for monthly per adult equivalent household consumption is 2.9 rupees on a base of 137 (about 2%, std dev = 76). Our minimum detectable effect for monthly per adult equivalent household income is 11.4 rupees on a base of 261 (about 4%, std dev = 287).

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IFMR Human Subjects Committee
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
IRB Name
University of Rochester
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Pre-Analysis Plan

MD5: b79e2c5cf5503de39eedbf70cf8e4fd4

SHA1: c35bc2877e14693f71cacf76bb62533a00aad0d8

Uploaded At: March 30, 2022


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials