reduced the expected net earnings by $1,100, which is 8 percent of the control group mean (column 3). The ‘low’ wage information reduced expected earnings by $860, only slightly smaller than the effect of the ‘high’ wage information treatment. As discussed in Section 3.1, the information treatments differed in terms of the year of the statistic, but were similar after the numbers were adjusted for the inflation and the increase in exchange rate of the destination countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that the effects of these information treatments are also quite similar. In fact, this suggests that inexperienced potential migrants are quite sophisticated in the way they treat the wage information treatment.

Neither of the wage information treatments had any effect on the earnings expectation of the experienced potential migrants (Table 3, columns 5 and 6). The estimated effects are both small and statistically indistinguishable from zero. The lack of effect for the experienced potential migrants is expected as they have better source of information about their earnings potential.

# **5 Does information affect migration and other outcomes?**

The initial survey in January 2015 collected phone numbers for the respondent, his wife and a family member (when available). These subjects were contacted again in April 2015 through a telephone survey. The primary purpose of the telephone survey was to determine the migration status of the initial respondent. Upon contact and consent, enumerators administered a short survey, collecting information on migration-related details, job search efforts, and debt and asset positions. The first part of this section describes the follow-up survey protocols and discusses attrition. The second part discusses the effect of information on migration choices and robustness to various definitions of migration. The last part of this section describes the impact of informational interventions on other outcomes measured during the follow-up survey.

## **5.1 Follow-up survey and attrition**

### **Follow-up survey and protocol**

These April 2015 follow-up telephone surveys were conducted from the data collection firm’s office under close supervision of two supervisors. Enumerators were given specific SIM cards to be used during the office hours for the purposes of the follow-up survey. A protocol was developed to reach out to as many initial respondents (or their family members) as possible. Enumerators would first call the initial respondent’s phone number followed by the wife’s and the family member’s phone number if the former could not be contacted. If anyone picked up the phone, enumerators confirmed the identity of the initial respondent or their family members and made sure that they were talking about the correct initial respondent. Then enumerators noted the migration status of the initial respondent: if he was available, they administered the follow-up survey to him; if he had already migrated, they administered it to the telephone respondent (usually the wife, siblings or parents). In case the initial respondent was known to be in the country, enumerators made up to three attempts to administer the follow-up survey to him, before resorting to the telephone respondent.

If no one could be contacted on any of the phone numbers, then the enumerators would try the set of phone numbers again at another time or day. Enumerators attempted to call each set of numbers for six days with at least one attempt every day before giving up on contacting the subjects. If the telephone respondents were busy at the time of the call, enumerators made an appointment with them and contacted them at a time of their choosing. This protocol was designed to ensure that the subjects, or their family members, were contacted whenever possible and the failure to contact them either meant that the telephone numbers provided were either wrong or that the subjects had already migrated.

effects of the interventions are concentrated in expected monthly earnings with no effect in expected fees (monetary costs) to migrate. The results are almost identical if the analysis is repeated on the (gross) earnings from migration. I use net earnings simply for ease of interpretation.

14