range of social protection schemes and public services<sup>12</sup> (Srivastava, 2012). It is also requested as a proof of identity for a variety of other purposes, such as initiating telephone service or opening a bank account (Zelazny, 2012; Abbas and Varma, 2014).

Ration cards, however, are not portable across states and this is primarily attributable to the design of the PDS system for which these cards were designed. Even though most of the PDS subsidy cost is borne by the central government, the program is administered by state governments that sometimes provide additional price subsidies. Some states also have a more inclusive subsidy entitlement policy than the central government. In Tamil Nadu, for example, every person is entitled to receive subsidized food. In Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, more than 70 percent of the population is entitled to subsidized rations. As a result, state governments generally do not extend PDS benefits to migrants who hold ration cards from other states (Srivastava, 2012).

Individuals moving across state boundaries therefore risk losing access to the PDS and a host of public services. According to household survey data, 27 percent of all rural households and 15 percent of all urban households were fully dependent on PDS grain, and most households in India were eligible in 2004-05 (Kumar et al., 2014). The PDS subsidy is a particularly important source of calories for poor households (Dreze and Khera, 2013). Therefore, the loss of access to subsidized PDS food and a host of other associated welfare benefits could act as an indirect barrier to migration in India.

The literature suggests that the lack of portability of PDS benefits and cards contributes to the inertia of the unskilled who are likely to be most dependent on it. Kone et al. (2016) show that the share of in-state unskilled emigration<sup>13</sup> and the share of the unskilled population participating in the PDS have a positive and significant association.<sup>14</sup> This suggests that the larger is the share of unskilled population who rely on PDS, the higher is the tendency for potential emigrants to choose home-state destinations over out-of-state destinations. This finding is consistent with the argument that inadequate portability of social welfare programs such as PDS tends to deter households who rely on these benefits from moving across state borders.

This paper’s regression analysis based on the IHDS shows that households with identification documents are less likely to have nonresidents who migrated across states. Comparing households with and without nonresident members in 2011-12, there is no statistically significant relationship with a household having photo identification proof<sup>15</sup> (controlling for a range of household and household head characteristics that may influence the migration decision). However, when the sample is restricted to migrants who have moved across states, the coefficient on the identification proof is negative and significant (see Appendix Table 3). This suggests that having some form of identification proof was associated with a lower probability of a nonresident household member who has migrated across states. It is consistent with the argument that inadequate portability of identification documents to access social welfare benefits deters households from sending

> 12 These include mid-day meals for children; social security schemes for informal sector workers; pension schemes for the aged, physically challenged and widows; public employment schemes; elementary education; health care etc. 13 The number of unskilled emigrants who moved to destinations within the state of their origin, divided by the total number of unskilled migrants from the said state.

> 14 Controlling for average household income per capita and the share of agricultural households at the state level. 15 Includes ration card, voter ID card and PAN card.

16