This effect is statistically different from the account only condition in both datasets (p-values 0.036 and 0.007), which confirms that the direct deposit feature is helpful at encouraging new savings. The results in Table 6, column (2) show that the payroll account treatment has an even larger effect on the intensive margin of savings. Participants in the payroll accounts group increased their savings by 51 log points at endline and 89 log points when we consider the full panel of followup and endline surveys. The effects are statistically different for the bank or mobile payroll and bank or mobile account conditions in the endline sample (p-value 0.041) as well as in the panel of follow-up and endline surveys (p-value 0.084). This is consistent with previous work on the effect of account ownership and suggests that, although direct deposits provide an additional commitment device that promotes savings, simply being given an account can help increase savings. In Table 6, columns (3) and (4) we turn to the impact of payroll accounts on the share of formal versus informal savings and find that, as one would expect, our treatments reduce the share of informal savings and an increase in the share of formal savings. These effects are again concentrated in the payroll account group (p-value 0.000 in both samples).<sup>41</sup> In column (5) we report treatment effects on remittances. A priori, the potential impact of payroll accounts on remittances is ambiguous in our setting. In addition to supporting the consumption of network members back home, workers also use remittances to save.<sup>42</sup> Savings held by friends and family may be subject to problems of control, as documented for example by Jakiela and Ozier (2015).As we have shown above, when used correctly, formal accounts reduce the cost of sending remittances, which should lead to an increase in transfers. However, formal accounts also lower the relative cost of private savings. This force would lead payroll accounts to decrease remittances. We find no evidence that payroll accounts increase remittances. Moreover, while the point estimate is negative, it is not statistically significant.<sup>43</sup> Our finding that remittances do not increase shows that improvements in learning cannot be explained by an increased demand for remittance services.

**Consumption.** Table 6, columns (6) to (10) turn to the impact of payroll accounts on consumption. In Table 6, column (6) we report treatment effects on total consumption, columns (7) and (8) show disaggregated effects for food and non-food consumption. The results, while not statistically distinguishable between the payroll account and account treatment groups, suggest that

> 41In Appendix D.1, we further decompose these impacts by bank and mobile account. Both account types offer a similar interest rate for deposits and encourage savings, though the impacts are larger in bank payroll accounts. The impacts on remittances are similar by account type. Finally, the impacts on consumption and shock-mitigation are also comparable. While workers save more in their bank accounts, mobile recipients experience an increase in incoming transfers, both of which may help to mitigate shocks.

> 42Because many workers do not have a safe or convenient place to save in the city, many ask family members in their place of origin to save on their behalf, either in their homes or in a rural bank account.

> 43We note that our findings contrast with those of Lee et al. (2020), who show that giving simple mobile money accounts to both the senders and recipients of remittances in Bangladesh causes a large increase in remittances. Treating both parties may cause a larger total decrease in the cost of sending money than our treatment, and it also may give the remittance recipients more bargaining power over migrant earnings. This latter interpretation is consistent with the decreases in migrant health and well-being they document.

21